Atoms for peace and war, 1953-1961: Eisenhower and the Atomic Energy Commission 9780520368989, 9780520329348

Table of contents :
Frontmatter (page N/A)
List of Illustrations (page vii)
List of Figures and Tables (page ix)
Foreword by Richard S. Kirkendall (page xi)
Preface (page xix)
Acknowledgments (page xxvii)
1. A Secret Mission (page 1)
2. The Eisenhower Imprint (page 17)
3. The President and the Bomb (page 34)
4. The Oppenheimer Case (page 73)
5. The Political Arena (page 113)
6. Nuclear Weapons: A New Reality (page 144)
7. Nuclear Power for the Marketplace (page 183)
8. Atoms for Peace: Building American Policy (page 209)
9. Pursuit of the Peaceful Atom (page 238)
10. the Seeds of Anxiety (page 271)
11. Safeguards, EURATOM, and the International Agency (page 305)
12. Nuclear Issues: A Time for Decision (page 326)
13. Nuclear Issues: The Presidential Campaign of 1956 (page 351)
14. In Search of a Nuclear Test Ban (page 375)
15. Politics of the Peaceful Atom (page 403)
16. EURATOM and the International Agency, 1957-1958 (page 430)
17. Toward a Nuclear Test Moratorium (page 449)
18. A New Approach to Nuclear Power (page 489)
19. Science for War and Peace (page 515)
20. The Test Ban: A Fading Hope (page 537)
21. The Great Debate (page 562)
Appendix 1: Personnel (page 569)
Appendix 2: AEC Ten-Year Summary of Financial Data (page 576)
Appendix 3: AEC Ten-Year Summary of Employment (page 578)
Appendix 4: Announced U.S. Nuclear Tests, 1953-1958 (page 579)
Appendix 5: Procurement of Uranium Concentrates (U3O8) (page 580)
Appendix 6: Agreements for Cooperation in the Civil and Military Uses of Atomic Energy (page 581)
Appendix 7: AEC Operations Offices (page 582)
Appendix 8: AEC Organization Charts, May 1953-September 1958 (page 583)
Appendix 9: Eight Basic Reactor Systems Being Developed (page 590)
List of Abbreviations (page 593)
Notes (page 595)
Essay on Sources by Roger M. Anders (page 657)
Index (page 675)

Citation preview

CALIFORNIA STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE J. L. HETILBRON, EDITOR

The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History, selected, translated, and edited, with an Introduction and Notes by Maurice A. Finocchiaro

The New World, 1939-1946 (A History of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, volume |) by Richard G. Hewlett and Oscar E. Anderson, Jr. Atomic Shield, 1947-1952 (A History of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, volume 2) by Richard G. Hewlett and Francis Duncan Atoms for Peace and War, 1953-1961: Eisenhower and the Atomic Energy Commission (A History of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, volume 3) by Richard G. Hewlett and Jack M. Holl

E. O. Lawrence and His Laboratory: The History of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, volume 1 by J. L. Heilbron and Robert W. Seidel

ATOMS for PEACE and WAR

1953-1961

FOR

AND

1953-1961 Eisenhower and the Atomic Energy Commission Richard G.M. Bow iatt and Jack Holl With a Foreword by Richard S. Kirkendall and an Essay on Sources by Roger M. Anders

University of California Press Berkeley Los Angeles London

Published 1989 by the University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, California University of California Press, Ltd. London, England Prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission; work made for hire. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hewlett, Richard G. Atoms for peace and war, 1953-1961. (California studies in the history of science) Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Nuclear energy— United States— History. 2. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission—History. 3. Eisenhower, Dwight D. (Dwight David), 1890-1969. 4. United States—Politics and government— 1953-1961.

I. Holl, Jack M. II. Title. I. Series. QC792.7.H48 1989 333.79'24'0973 88-29578 ISBN 0-520-06018-0 (alk. paper) Printed in the United States of America

123 45 67 8 9

CONTENTS

List of Illustrations vil List of Figures and Tables 1x Foreword by Richard S. Kirkendall x1

Preface X1X

Acknowledgements XXVII

1. A Secret Mission ] 2. The Eisenhower [Imprint 17 3. The President and the Bomb 34 4. The Oppenheimer Case 73

9. The Political Arena 113

6. Nuclear Weapons: A New Reality 144 7. Nuclear Power for the Marketplace 183 8. Atoms for Peace: Building American Policy 209 9. Pursuit of the Peaceful Atom 238 10. The Seeds of Anxiety 271 11. Safeguards, EURATOM, and the International Agency 305 12. Nuclear Issues: A Time for Decision 326 13. Nuclear Issues: The Presidential Campaign of 1956 301 14. In Search of a Nuclear Test Ban 3795 15. Politics of the Peaceful Atom 403 16. EURATOM and the International Agency, 1957-1958 430 17. Toward a Nuclear Test Moratorium 449 18. A New Approach to Nuclear Power 489 19. Science for War and Peace 915 20. The Test Ban: A Fading Hope a3 7

21. The Great Debate 962

CONTENTS

Appendix 1: Personnel 969 Appendix 2: AEC Ten-Year Summary of Financial Data 976 Appendix 3: AEC Ten-Year Summary of Employment 978

Appendix 4: Announced U.S. Nuclear Tests, 1953-1958 979 Appendix 5: Procurement of Uranium Concentrates (U;03) 980 Appendix 6: Agreements for Cooperation in the Civil

and Military Uses of Atomic Energy 08 | Appendix 7: AEC Operations Offices 082 Appendix 8: AEC Organization Charts,

May 1953-—September 1958 983 Appendix 9: Eight Basic Reactor Systems Being Developed 990

List of Abbreviations 993

Notes 999

vi Essay on Sources by Roger M. Anders 697 Index 6795

ILLUSTRATIONS (following page 374)

1. Commissioners of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and the General Manager 1953 AEC-53-4802

2. Dr. Oppenheimer seated at his desk in his office at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ January 2, 1954 Library of Congress—LC USZ62-61847 3. President Eisenhower signs the Atomic Energy Bill August 30, 1954 DOE Archives (Signal Corps photo)

4. Nevada Proving Ground—Complete destruction of House #1, located 3,500 feet from ground zero, by atomic blast at Yucca Flat March 17, 1953 AEC-53-4622—Photos | and 2 from a series of eight AEC-53-4625—Photo 3 from a series of eight AEC-53-4623— Photo 7 from a series of eight 29. Castle-Bravo Device—Inside the shot house February 1954 DOE Archives B-83485 6. White House discussion on the Atoms-for-Peace Program. Left to right: George Humphrey, President Eisenhower, John Foster Dulles,

ILLUSTRATIONS

Dillon Anderson, Lewis L. Strauss, and Charles E. Wilson January 13, 1956 Eisenhower Library—72-1582-2 (National Park Service) 7. Edgar Dixon and Eugene Yates at power project site June 1955 Eisenhower Library— 70-519-2 8. Official military observers and U.S. congressmen observe the mushroom cloud formation following the firing of the first atomic artillery shell at the Nevada Test Site May 1953 AEC 64-7458 Photo by U.S. Army

Vill 9. Lewis L. Strauss with Ernest Lawrence, Mark Mills, and Edward Teller

June 18, 1957 Eisenhower Library— 72-2308 (National Park Service)

10. President Eisenhower sets the cornerstone of new AEC Building in Germantown, Maryland. Left to right: John A. Derry, AEC director of Construction and Supply; Rep. Carl T. Durham, chairman of the JCAE; and AEC Chairman Lewis L. Strauss November 8, 1957 DOE Archives 11. SNAP-3 demonstration device is shown to President Eisenhower by AEC Chairman John A. McCone and members of the Division of Reactor Development. Left to right: President Eisenhower, MajorGeneral Donald J. Keirn, Chairman McCone, Colonel Jack L. Armstrong, and Lt. Colonel Guveren M. Anderson. January 16, 1959 DOE Archives

FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES

1. Exclusion Area for March 1, 1954, detonation 172 2. Castle fallout pattern superimposed on eastern United States 181

TABLES

1. Major AEC Contractors 10 2. United States Nuclear Reactor Program, June 1957 411 3. Reactors included in the Commission’s Long-Range Plan ol]

FOREWORD

This volume, the third in the official history of the Atomic Energy Commis-

sion, makes sizable contributions in several areas, including the Eisenhower presidency. During the years in which work on the book has moved

forward, that presidency has been one of historiographical frontiers, an area of exciting explorations and new developments. A “revisionism” has emerged to challenge a conception that had taken shape earlier and was quite negative in its appraisal of Eisenhower. Some findings of the revisionists now seem quite firmly established, but the new interpretation has not swept the field. Challenges to it have also appeared. A volume focusing on nuclear energy cannot make contributions to all aspects of the controversy over President Eisenhower, but this book can and does have much to say about some main features of the debate. In the process, the book illustrates,

as did the earlier volumes in the series, how very good “official history” can be. Early on, American historians were not enthusiastic about Eisen-

hower as president.'! Journalists and other writers outside the historical profession, including Samuel J. Lubell, Robert J. Donovan, Arthur Krock, Merlo J. Pusey, Arthur Larson, and Clinton Rossiter, had developed posi-

tive appraisals in the mid-1950s, but by the 1960s most historians endorsed the more negative views first presented by Norman Graebner, Hans

J. Morgenthau, Richard Rovere, Marquis Childs, William V. Shannon, Walt W. Rostow, Richard Neustadt, James MacGregor Burns, and Emmett John Hughes from 1956 to 1963. A poll by Arthur M. Schlesinger in 1962 and a much larger one conducted by Gary M. Maranell in 1968 revealed that historians ranked Eisenhower in a low position among American presidents, far below the great and near great.

Several themes characterized this interpretation of the president

FOREWORD

from Abiline. His critics in and out of the historical profession portrayed him as a man who neither dominated nor controlled his own administration and its policies. Instead, people such as John Foster Dulles ran things, often badly. Moreover, the president had little understanding or liking for his job, was weak and passive rather than energetic, muddled rather than intelligent. Dulles, a pious dogmatist, damaged U.S. relations with other nations and nearly precipitated World War III; the administration’s fiscal and military policies weakened the United States. Although Eisenhower, in spite of his close ties with corporate executives and conservative Republicans, did preserve the New Deal and Containment, the domestic and international programs of Democratic administrations, he failed to take advantage of his popularity, supply needed innovations, and define and act on problems. Instead, he left them for solution by his more intelligent and energetic successor.

KL Before the end of the 1960s, however, a new view began to take shape and gain support. It emerged first outside the historical profession in essays by Murray Kempton, Gary Wills, and Richard Rhodes from 1967 to 1970. It moved into historical scholarship in 1972, chiefly in a large work

by Herbert S. Parmet, and advanced in that world over the next several years in essays and books by Barton J. Bernstein, Blanche Wiesen Cook, Gary W. Reichard, and Charles C. Alexander. By the early 1980s, Richard

H. Immerman, Douglas Kinnard, Allen Yarnell, Elmo Richardson, and R. Alton Lee had made various contributions to what was by then called “Eisenhower Revisionism.” It reached a high point in works by Robert Divine, Fred I. Greenstein, and Stephen Ambrose, published from 1981 to 1984. Since then, this revisionist movement has continued to roll forward in writings of Mary S. McAuliffe, Anna K. Nelson, Walter A. McDougall, and David Allan Mayers, among others. And such writings have had an impact on the profession as a whole, for polls in this decade indicate that Eisenhower has moved toward greatness in the eyes of many historians. Why has the change taken place? The publication of a new round of memoirs, including ones by Arthur Larson, Arthur Krock, and Milton 5. Eisenhower, made some contributions; the opening of new sources, especially the file developed by Eisenhower’s personal secretary, Ann Whitman, contributed even more, doing so by revealing features of his presidency that had been hidden or unclear before. The times, however, deserve most of the credit. Vietnam, Watergate, riots, high inflation, the economic

slowdown, soaring government spending, short-term presidencies, unprecedented deficits in the federal budget, and other ills of American life since 1965 provided new perspectives. Looking at Ike from those angles, many observers found much to admire. The revisionism produced by these forces had several major features. One that links all the authors and justifies placing them in a group was the portrayal of Eisenhower as a strong, active president. The writers

FOREWORD

presented him as a person of intellectual strength with a point of view (although one they defined in varied ways), desire to push it forward, and skill in doing so. He was self-confident, a good judge of people, possessed detailed knowledge of what was going on, controlled his administration, and used his subordinates for his own purposes. Providing what Greenstein labeled “hidden hand leadership,” he often concealed the ways in which he was working and frequently allowed his lieutenants to take the flak so as to preserve his prestige and strength. Although his critics often lampooned his speaking habits, revisionists insisted that he used language skillfully and was clear when he wished to be, unclear when that served his purposes. Although not a solid bloc, many revisionists are united by admiration of the results of Eisenhower’s efforts as well as his methods. Some see him as a calm, quiet contributor to the destruction of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. Some present him as working effectively with the politicians to XHi reshape the Republican party and preserve the New Deal. Some argue that he exerted a restraining influence on both right-wing Republicans and the “military-industrial complex,” thereby avoiding both inflating prices and an escalating arms race. Above all, the most enthusiastic revisionists, such as Divine, see Eisenhower as a man of peace. In their view, he, unlike his predecessor and his successors, was restrained, moderate, and prudent in using power and active and effective in promoting peace, his area of greatest concern. Knowing how to act in a nuclear age, he ended the Korean War, avoided military involvement on the side of the French in Vietnam, rejected “Liberation” for “Containment,” and sought to end nuclear testing. Although the times offered many opportunities to go to war, he did not seize any of them, and he worked with some success to lower Cold War tensions, though doing so often pitted him against hard-line Cold Warriors in his own party, including Dulles. At the same time, the president did not back away from action when an international situation demanded it. And he treated allies with respect for he recognized that the U.S. needed their cooperation. Although the revisionists exerted substantial influence, they did not gain a monopoly on interpretations of Eisenhower. Even some of those who contributed to the rise of the movement, such as Immerman and Cook, parted company with their associates on important points. Nearly all writers

came to see Eisenhower as a strong president, at least in international affairs, but many, such as Peter Lyon in 1974, and Stephen Schlesinger, Stephen Kinzer, Thomas J. Noer, Bryce Wood, Stephen G. Rabe, George Herring, and Robert J. McMahon more recently, dislike ways in which he used his strength; at least one historian, Robert F. Burk, has reaffirmed after much research the old view of this president as weak and seriously inadequate in one major area: black civil rights. Thus, recently opened sources now sustain antirevisionist as well as

FOREWORD

revisionist interpretations. The former, in addition to criticizing Eisenhower for giving little help to efforts to destroy racial injustices inside the United States, charge that he lacked a coherent philosophy, failed to reshape the Republican party, and tolerated “McCarthyism” in his administration, thereby damaging the State Department as well as individuals. Antirevisionists maintain that he was a vigorous Cold Warrior, threatened nuclear war more than once, and made defective disarmament proposals. While often agreeing that the president sought to avoid nuclear war, they

demonstrate that he employed covert action by the Central Intelligence Agency and other parts of the government to subvert or attempt to subvert governments and reshape the world. He did so in Iran, Guatemala, Vietnam, Indonesia, Egypt, Laos, Eastern Europe, Cuba, and the Congo. Just as antirevisionists portray Eisenhower as weak on race relations at home, they object to his roles in the Third World. They maintain that he

KIV made the United States the foe of revolution in Southeast Asia, brought the Cold War to South Asia, failed to appreciate the strength of and adjust to Arab nationalism, and was insensitive to and distrustful of nationalist movements in Latin America and Africa and did not deal successfully with them. By failing to give enough attention to Eisenhower’s failures in the Third World, the revisionists have presented, Robert McMahon argues, “a distorted and oversimplified view of American foreign relations during a critical eight-year period.”’? There is significant disagreement among the antirevisionists. It concerns the sources of Eisenhower's actions. Some, such as Lyon, Schlesinger, Kinzer, and Cook, see him as a captive of big business, seeking to serve

its interests, such as the interest of United Fruit in Guatemala. Others, Immerman, for one, emphasize ideology, presenting the president as dominated by anticommunism. Out of the clash of points of view and the industrious exploration of the sources, a complex portrait of Eisenhower is taking form. The early book by Alexander, more recent articles by Thomas F. Soapes and Robert Griffith, monographs by Burton I. Kaufman and H. W. Brands, Jr., and a

biography by Burk paint the man as complex and not easily appraised. Ambrose, in his biography of 1983-1984 and also his 1981 book with Immerman, on Eisenhower’s use of “spies,” makes an especially strong effort to strike a balance. Although Eisenhower historiography is still in an early stage, some matters do appear settled, and the biggest problems seem defined. Clearly, Eisenhower was an important president—an active rather than a passive one. He was also a man of several parts who was working in a complex period and engaging in varied activities. Scholars now face the difficult tasks of weighing the different sides of his presidency. How important was each? What deserves the most weight? Should we stress his avoidance of war or his promotion of covert activities? Should we emphasize his efforts to re-

FOREWORD

duce conflicts with the Soviet Union or his Cold Warriorism and his relations with Third World nationalisms? The new volume by Hewlett and Holl taps the recent writing on Eisenhower and adds to our understanding of his presidency. The citations, and also the good essay on sources by Roger M. Anders, indicate that the authors and their team found the revisionists especially helpful. Thus, this work cites Parmet, Eisenhower and the American Crusades (1972) and Ambrose, Eisenhower: The President (1984), with Anders defining the first as “a well-balanced, detailed study of Eisenhower’s first administration but . . . much less thorough on the second” and pointing out the harmony

between Ambrose and Hewlett and Holl in interpreting the president. Hewlett and Holl also draw upon Divine, including Eisenhower and the Cold War (1981), “an excellent study, although limited to specific topics,” according to Anders, as well as Blowing in the Wind: The Nuclear Test Ban

Debate (1978), which the essay on sources labels the best single-volume XV study of the fallout controversy. Although the revisionists provided more help than the antirevision-

ists, Hewlett and Holl are not uncritical in using any of their predecessors and depend chiefly on primary materials. Like other recent works, this one draws significantly on the now rich resources of the Eisenhower Library, especially the Whitman file, and also rests upon other sources, including congressional materials and records of the Department of State, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and, above all, the Atomic Energy Commission. Even though some sources cannot yet be seen by historians, even ones with the privileges that Hewlett and Holl enjoyed, the massive quantity of materials available for substantial topics in recent history provides a rationale, as Anders points out, for team research. This book on the Atomic Energy Commission is not a narrow history of a government agency. Dealing with the AEC during the period when issues concerning nuclear weapons and nuclear power emerged as large public concerns, the volume ranges well beyond the commission. Much of the work deals with Eisenhower. Although not uncritical, the authors find much to admire in him. Hewlett and Holl offer support for the conception of Eisenhower as a strong, active president, determined to supply leadership. Subordinates, such as Dulles, Lewis Strauss, and John McCone, did not dominate him. Instead, he exerted a powerful influence on them, bringing them around to his point of view or restraining, even frustrating them. He concealed his

“withering temper” from the public but not from his aides. He kept in touch with developments, considered programs thoughtfully, searched for answers, initiated his own ideas, acted both tough and flexible, engaged in give and take with members of his administration and with outsiders, and battled for his convictions. He played the political game with skill, concealing at times his motives and moves from the press and the public

FOREWORD

as Greenstein suggested, while appealing boldly for support on other occasions. Eisenhower was not a shadowy figure in his administration. He was prominent, easy to see, at least for those who could and can get behind the

scenes. In this book, we see him playing many crucial roles. Determined to have an impact, he participated vigorously in the affairs of government in order to accomplish his purposes.

And one of his main purposes, Hewlett and Holl indicate, was peace. Here, too, as in their conception of Eisenhower as an active president, they are in harmony with the revisionists and contribute to developing

the revisionist interpretation. These historians of the AEC present this president as passionately interested in and very active on behalf of peace, and their issue area, which includes the bomb, provides one of the best ways of illustrating these aspects of his presidency. Knowing little about Xv1 the destructiveness of nuclear weapons before he came to office, he quickly learned what these new tools could do, was deeply troubled by what he learned, and sought from the beginning to the end of his administration to reduce the danger of nuclear war. He supplied leadership in developing and promoting a series of proposals and programs: Operation Candor, Atoms for Peace, disarmament negotiations with the Soviet Union, a worldwide ban and an American moratorium on nuclear testing. And he suffered deep disappointment over the narrow limits on his accomplishments. He avoided a nuclear war in his time, but the danger of one still existed when he left office.

The book also illustrates other sides of Eisenhower’s presidency. It supplies some evidence of the influence of business leaders on him, more on his preference for private rather than government enterprise. Here, the issue was who would develop nuclear power, private corporations or public agencies. The book also offers evidence on his interest in the unification of Western Europe and the development of closer ties between that region and the United States as means to peace, prosperity, and security. Hewlett and Holl lend some support to antirevisionist themes. The book illustrates Eisenhower’s difficulties in reshaping the Republican party as an instrument of internationalism, and, while they do not advance our knowledge of the president’s relations with Senator McCarthy, the authors do show Eisenhower behaving in McCarthy-like ways. Even though he came out for Operation Candor, an effort to give the public the facts about the dangers of nuclear war, the president worried greatly about security and had a strong bias in favor of secrecy where weapons were concerned, and he played a major part in a sad story that featured the removal of J. Robert Oppenheimer’s security clearance, thereby barring the physicist from further contributions to the nuclear program. Although these authors give less attention than the antirevisionists to Kisenhower’s acceptance of Cold War assumptions, they do note that he

FOREWORD

was a Cold Warrior. They see him as less of one than were some other members of his administration, including Lewis Strauss, the AEC’s chair-

man through much of the period. Compared with some other people of importance, Eisenhower was less fearful and more willing to compromise, but he did have a quite negative view of the Soviet Union and its ambitions. Unlike some other historians, Hewlett and Holl neither challenge that view nor argue that it was the key to the president’s failures as a champion of peace. They merely point out that his concern about Soviet military strength did hamper his efforts to end the arms race. Eisenhower's relations with the Third World, a topic of large significance according to some recent writers on his presidency, are largely be-

yond the scope of this book, yet it does touch upon the subject and, in doing so, does not challenge the antirevisionists. Hewlett and Holl have no need to discuss covert activities, but they do call attention to the Europefirst orientation of Kisenhower’s Atoms-for-Peace program. Also, they note XVII the importance for the nuclear enterprises of the United States and its European allies of uranium deposits in such places as the Belgian Congo and South Africa. And they point out that one motive for promoting nuclear power in Western Europe, a major part of Atoms for Peace, was a desire to reduce the region’s dependence on the oil of Third World countries. Thus, the volume contributes many points to our understanding of

the Eisenhower presidency. Also, by the way in which it is written, the book challenges critics of official history. Note the willingness to report negative as well as positive sides of the agency’s record. See, for good examples, the discussion of the Oppenheimer affair and especially the conclusion reached. See the discussions of radiation, of the conflict between arms control and Atoms for Peace, of the AEC’s efforts to develop nuclear power, and of the agency’s critics, such as Senator Clinton Anderson. Note the penetrating essays on personalities, such as the comparison of Strauss and McCone in Chapter 18. Above all, consider what is written about the agency and disarmament. In this and other parts of the book, the authors give their readers, including other scholars, the evidence and arguments required to form opinions of their own. By doing so, the book establishes bases for new advances on the Eisenhower frontier.

Richard S. Kirkendall

PREFACE

This book begins with a surreptitious briefing of Dwight D. Eisenhower on the status of nuclear technology in the United States a few days after his election as President in 1952. So secret was the occasion that only Eisenhower himself and two government officials knew at the time that the meeting had taken place, much less what was revealed. Some of the information conveyed was considered too sensitive to be committed to paper, and the official who spoke with the President-elect destroyed all his notes as soon as he left the room. The book ends in autumn 1960, just eight years later, as Eisenhower

was completing his second term. By that time he had become a central figure in a growing national and international debate on the terrifying issues that could lead to nuclear war or world peace. The place of nuclear power in the world economy and in military strategy was no longer the concern of

a few thousand scientists, engineers, and government officials living in secret conclaves sealed off from the rest of the world by elaborate security barriers. Nuclear technology had now become a part of the political, the economic, and even the social fabric of the United States and the industrialized nations of the West.

How this remarkable change occurred in less than a decade is a question that historians have only begun to probe, and when they do they will find it a subject of extraordinary complexity and interest. As one would expect, some aspects of the emergence of nuclear technology are recorded in the conventional records of national and international politics. But for an adequate understanding of the subject, historians must also dig into complex issues of economic policy, including the role of national governments and private industry in developing nuclear and conventional power sources, the changing prospects of economic use of nuclear power in dif-

PREFACE

ferent parts of the world, and the impact of technological development on these prospects. Another area of critical importance is the perceived impact of nuclear technology on military strategy and tactics, on national defense systems, and ultimately on national security itself. Related to these military issues are such difficult questions as the consequences of testing nuclear weapons and the potential impact of nuclear warfare, not just on the structures of national governments but also on biological systems on which human existence depends. Even more difficult to assess are the subtle, longterm social and psychological effects of the nuclear threat. We touch upon all these themes in greater or lesser degree in this book, and we make no pretense that all of them have been either adequately introduced or fully explored. Rather this volume should stand among the first of many that will need to be written before historians can presume to

XX understand the full implications of the evolution of nuclear technology. As an initial study, this book focuses upon the role of the United States government in this evolution. Other nations, of course, have had a critical part in this development, but as the first nation to use nuclear power for military purposes and as a world leader in applying this energy source to civilian uses, the United States is a reasonable place to start. Moreover, we have not attempted to follow the evolution of nuclear technology in other countries, except to view that development from the American perspective. In our research we soon concluded that even the American story was too big to compress within the pages of a single volume. We also saw that in some instances the problems of obtaining adequate documentation for the whole story were insurmountable so soon after the events we were attempting to describe. It was obvious that a fully balanced account of the effort to build a nuclear industry in the United States would have to include the activities of many corporations and industrial leaders as well as those of elected officials and government administrators. But for many reasons the records documenting the role of private industry are not now available to historians and probably will not be for many years. Therefore, we describe events only from the government perspective. We also made a conscious decision not to enter the vast and arcane world of delivery systems for nuclear weapons, which involve technologies far different from those associated with nuclear warheads themselves. To follow the tortuous evolution and proliferation of delivery systems and their relation to military organization and doctrine would have required another volume at least as long as this one. Thus, we chose to write this book primarily from the perspective of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, the federal agency established in 1946 with unprecedented authority that gave it a virtual monopoly over all aspects of the development of nuclear technology for both military and peaceful purposes. The history of the Commission before the Eisen-

PREFACE

hower years has already been addressed in two earlier volumes: The New World, 1939-1946, published in 1962, and Atomic Shield, 1947-1952, published in 1969. As a third volume in the series, Atoms for Peace and War carries forward the story from the end of the second volume but with a somewhat different approach and emphasis. The earlier volumes were written as institutional histories and included chapters on organization and management. Now that the Commission no longer exists, it seems more useful to focus on its role in formulating domestic and international policy in the nuclear field, particularly the Commission’s relationships with the Eisenhower White House, than to probe the agency’s internal structure. Practical considerations also influenced our decision to take this new course. Most obvious, all the Commission’s official files were placed under our control as official historians of the Commission and its successor agencies. Thus, we had not only free access to the records but also responsibility for organizing and maintaining the large collection of policy docu- XX] ments that make up the Commission’s archives. Because we were among the first historians with security clearance

to seek access to the large and rich collection of classified files in the Eisenhower Presidential Library, we were among the few able to use these records before they were closed to research. Access to the detailed summaries of meetings of the National Security Council and to the President’s

classified correspondence made it possible to examine policy issues for both Eisenhower’s and the Commission’s perspectives and thus to gain an insight into the decision process that offered an exceptional opportunity for contemporary historians. As government historians we were also given full access to classified nuclear policy records held by the Department of State. This privilege enabled us often to add a third perspective to our analysis of White House meetings on international affairs. Thus, in exploring the evolution of nuclear technology during the Eisenhower Administration we have built our narrative around the activities of the successive chairmen of the Atomic Energy Commission and their fellow commissioners as they strove to resolve the perplexing issues that confronted them during these critical years. Never far from the scene, however, were the President’s senior advisers and Eisenhower himself. Indeed, looking back on what we have written, we can only conclude that Eisenhower dominated the formulation of nuclear policy in a way that no other President has before or since. In essence, then, this book records the actions of the President and the Commissioners with only enough technical and administrative detail to keep policy considerations in context. The opening chapter, which describes the first two secret briefings of the President-elect, not only explains what Eisenhower learned about the new technology but also gives the reader the background needed to follow the narrative. Chapter 2 recounts how Eisenhower reacted to this information, how he recognized the unprecedented threat to national security posed

PREFACE

by nuclear weapons, especially the hydrogen bomb, and how he began to give high priority to reformulating both domestic and foreign policy as a response to this threat. In Chapter 3 we follow the President’s long and frustrating search

for a new approach to the nuclear dilemma, beginning with hopes for Operation Candor early in 1953 and ending with his historic address on Atoms for Peace before the United Nations General Assembly at the end of the year.

Growing out of the bitter controversies emerging from efforts to understand the significance of the bomb in 1953 was the agonizing chain of events that ultimately resulted in revoking the security clearance of J. Robert Oppenheimer, one of the nation’s most distinguished and influential advisers on nuclear policy. In Chapter 4 we describe in detail for the first time the actions taken by the President, members of his cabinet, the

XXI1 Commission under Chairman Lewis L. Strauss, and J. Edgar Hoover of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in this tragedy. The Oppenheimer case marked the beginning of a new chapter in the Commission’s history and in the process revealed to the public more about the life-and-death issues of the nuclear era than Operation Candor ever could have done. Chapter 5 describes the efforts of the Administration, the Commission, and the Congress to revise the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, a process that raised serious questions about the role of the federal government in developing nuclear energy as an electric power source and the degree to which the Commission would be permitted to cooperate with other nations in promoting the President’s Atoms-for-Peace proposal. The new Atomic Energy Act of 1954 provides the statutory basis for the rest of the volume. In Chapter 6 the narrative moves away from the nation’s capital to describe the growing sophistication and destructive capability of testing nuclear weapons, culminating in the Pacific test on March 1, 1954, that forced a sweeping reassessment of the implications of nuclear warfare. The chapter also includes an overview of the Commission’s nationwide complex of mills, laboratories, and production plants built to transform uranium ore and other special materials into nuclear weapons. Chapter 7 examines the Commission’s plans to build experimental nuclear reactors for generating electric power and its attempts to encourage private industry to take part. The power demonstration reactor program is explained in the context of the growing policy debate between a Republican Administration and a Democratic Congress over the government’s role in promoting nuclear technology. Chapter 8 returns to the President’s Atoms-for-Peace speech in December 1953 and follows the initial proposals by the Commission and the Department of State for realizing Eisenhower’s dream. Eisenhower, Com-

mission Chairman Lewis L. Strauss, and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles are the leading characters in this drama. The scene shifts from

PREFACE

Washington to Geneva and back to the United Nations in New York as Western scientists and diplomats seek a workable formula for international cooperation, with or without the Soviet Union. Caught up in the worldwide enthusiasm over the peaceful atom, the Commission in 1955 tried to concentrate its resources on projects that appeared feasible in light of existing technology. Fending off proposals from

both the Administration and the Congress for full-scale development of nuclear power reactors, the Commission opted for more modest, long-term projects involving power reactor experiments, research in high-energy physics, preliminary studies of controlled thermonuclear reactions, and research on the biological effects of radiation. These activities are described in Chapter 9. The staggering dimensions of the thermonuclear test in the Pacific on March 1, 1954, both in terms of destructive power and radioactive fallout, required a full-scale reassessment of nuclear weapon strategy and the XX] hazards of nuclear testing. Chapter 10 traces initial attempts to comprehend the implications of the test within the Administration and then the Commission’s efforts to translate technical data into information the public could understand. Before the end of 1955, fallout had become a national and then an international issue on which the Great Debate of future years would be based. The Atoms-for-Peace plan posed an intractable dilemma: the need to safeguard technical information on nuclear weapons against dissemination to unfriendly nations and the President’s desire to promote the use of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Chapter 1] follows the evolution of Administration policy to resolve the dilemma and the impact of the proposed International Atomic Energy Agency and the KURATOM plan on this policy. By late 1955 the Eisenhower Administration was facing a wide range of perplexing issues related to both the domestic and international aspects

of nuclear policy, and under the threat of increasing fallout from testing and the power of the hydrogen bomb these were becoming issues of great public concern. During the first half of 1956, as described in Chapter 12, the President pushed both Strauss and Dulles to respond to this growing concern with practical proposals for limiting or banning nuclear tests. At the same time, Strauss and the Administration beat back attempts by the Democratic Congress to launch a massive federal program to build fullscale nuclear power plants. Nuclear technology became a significant issue in presidential politics for the first time in the 1956 election. Building on Chapter 12, Chapter 13 shows how the H-bomb became an issue in the campaign and how Eisenhower used it to his own advantage.

After the 1956 election the President returned to his quest for an end to the nuclear arms race. Chapter 14 recounts both the activities of

PREFACE

Harold E. Stassen, the President’s adviser on disarmament, in drafting a plan and the objections raised by Strauss and Dulles. Building on the mandate that he saw in the President’s reelection victory, Strauss launched out boldly in 1957 to entice private industry into building and operating nuclear power plants. A part of this strategy was creating a market for American power reactors in Europe through the EURATOM plan. As Chapter 15 reveals, the prospects for nuclear power had already begun to fade in the face of economic realities. By the end of the year Strauss stood almost alone in his dogmatic fight for a private power industry. By 1957 the International Agency and EURATOM had become key

elements in Eisenhower’s grand plan to use nuclear technology to forge strong economic bonds with Europe and to provide markets for American reactors abroad. Chapter 16 examines the conflicts that the Commission XXIV and the State Department encountered in promoting these organizations as they tried to reconcile requirements for adequate safeguards with the President’s plan, heralded in the United States’ impressive demonstration of technical achievement at the second international conference on the peaceful uses of atomic energy in Geneva in 1958. Chapter 17 describes the growing public opposition to nuclear test-

ing both in the United States and abroad in 1957 and early 1958. As Eisenhower continued to press for a test ban and a flood of publications sensationalized the health hazards of fallout, Strauss and the Commission justified further testing as a means of developing a “clean” weapon. International pressure for a test ban reached new heights in the United Nations in September 1957, and the shocking news of Sputnik the following month brought into positions of influence a new group of scientists with a new approach to a test ban. By the time Strauss left the Commission in June 1958, the President was considering a proposal to ban atmospheric testing. With the appointment of John A. McCone as Strauss’s successor in July 1958, the Commission began to take a more realistic and less dogmatic approach to the development of nuclear power. Chapter 18 shows how McCone worked with both the Congress and representatives of industry to develop a new set of priorities. McCone’s efforts brought into public debate

for the first time some of the practical problems facing nuclear power development.

During the last three years of the Eisenhower Administration the _ Commission supported a broad range of projects to develop nuclear propulsion systems for aircraft, rockets, and submarines and auxiliary power sys-

tems for satellites. On the civilian side, the Commission continued to finance basic research in high-energy physics, controlled fusion, and peaceful uses of nuclear explosives. As Chapter 19 shows, McCone tempered support for these projects with hard-headed appraisals of their cost

PREFACE

and effectiveness. The chapter also relates his personal efforts to broaden the exchange of scientific and technical information with the Soviet Union. Chapter 20 describes Eisenhower's final attempts to end the nuclear arms race, culminating in his decision in 1958 to announce a unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing and his continuing support of negotiations with the Soviet Union until the end of his term in 1961. Although most documentation for this book has been declassified, some narrative covering significant policy issues rests on classified materials cited in the notes but unavailable to the public. Because we have had free access to records regardless of their classification, we can be confident that our interpretations are based on all the sources available to us. At the same time, we have not always been able to present all the relevant facts, particularly on issues related to nuclear weapon technology, testing, and test-ban negotiations. In a few instances, we have had to delete material considered diplomatically sensitive in our description of negotiations with XXV the United Kingdom. We regret that we cannot point out where these defciencies occur, but we can assure our readers that we have tried to convey the essential truth, if not all the details upon which it rests. As we suggested at the beginning of this preface, this book represents more the first than the last word on a subject of major significance in the recent history of the United States. We trust that in time other historians and scholars will ferret out the remaining details and examine other aspects of the subject. Richard G. Hewlett Jack M. Holl Germantown, Maryland

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

For eighteen years, until the agency was abolished in 1975, the Atomic Energy Commission supported this history project, which has resulted, along with other publications, in the three books published in this series. During those years all the Commissioners and senior staff provided the support and encouragement needed to accomplish this task. We owe a special debt of gratitude to Woodford B. McCool, who served as Secretary of the Commission from 1956 until 1973; he took the initiative to establish the history program and provided the resources and the staff that made the first two volumes possible. His successor, Paul Bender, continued that support during the early research for this book. From Velma E. Lockhart, who for more than twenty-five years maintained the Commissioners’ official files, we inherited the primary source material for this book. Each Commission chairman— Lewis Strauss, John McCone, Glenn T. Seaborg, and James R.

Schlesinger—personally supported the history project. Dixy Lee Ray, chairman during the Commission’s final years, also took a personal interest in the historians and helped us to gain control of the historical records that now constitute a large part of the Department of Energy’s archives. While the project was a part of the Energy Research and Development Administration, we received continued support from Robert C. Sea-

mans, Jr., the administrator; Robert W. Fri, his deputy; and Sam Hale, special assistant to the administrator. They made it possible not only to continue research for this book but also to collect historical records on a variety of energy projects. Jack King and Robert Newlin, successive directors of public affairs, provided program support that enabled us to accept new responsibilities beyond the work of writing this book. When the Department of Energy was created in 1977, the history program was assigned to the Department’s executive secretariat. Since then,

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

each Secretary of Energy, including James R. Schlesinger, Charles W. Duncan, Jr., James B. Edwards, Donald Paul Hodel, and John S. Herrington, has maintained the history program. Helping us to find a place in the new department were Raymond Walters, Frank R. Pagnotta, Christina L. Rathkopf, Gene K. Fleming, and Carole J. Gorry. In the midst of a sweeping reorganization in 1981, William S. Heffelfinger, director of administra-

tion, rescued the project from lassitude and placed it once again in the executive secretariat under the strong leadership of William V. Vitale. A protégé of W. B. McCool in the Atomic Energy Commission, Vitale has

not only fostered and defended the history program but has also helped shape its larger mission and goals. Lawrence F. Davenport, assistant secretary for management and administration, and Harry L. Peebles, director of administration, have continued Heffelfinger’s support. Other Department of Energy officials who have been especially encouraging include xxviii W. Kenneth Davis, John F. Bagley, John A. Griffin, Robert T. Duff, Jill Ellman Lytle, Roy G. Boger, Jr., and Thomas F. Cornwell. No government historian can complete a large research project with-

out the assistance of numerous fellow workers. Lester Koogle, Denise Diggin, Dave Farace, Jim Kelly, Eric McDonnell, Paul Landau, Thomas J. Murray, and Hannah King helped us with library reference and interlibrary loans. Cathy Hutzell, Annette Black, Arthur Ballou, and Robert Kelbaugh assisted us in gaining access to agency records, while Richard Peabody, Louis Hicks, and Jack Schneider provided guidance to photo collections. I. L. Cucchiara, Lenard Safranski, Doug Hughes, Leo Sullivan, Charles

Reichardt, and Charles Knesel helped us with classification problems. Robert Tharp provided important advice on security matters. We received help from the Department’s field offices and national laboratories as well. Because we focused more on President Eisenhower's nuclear policies than on the Commission’s technical programs, we used field and laboratory records less than in previous volumes, but they still proved invaluable. David A. Heimback, Gilbert Ortiz, Walter Bramlett, and Anthony Riveria at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Floyd Beets and William Hatmaker at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Dennis DeFord at the Department’s Richland Operations Office, and E. Newman Pettitt at Argonne National Laboratory aided us in finding pertinent records and locating former officials. Except for the Commission’s records, our most extensive research was conducted at the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library in Abilene, Kansas. James P. Leyerzapf, assistant director for archival services,

coordinated our access to records and made special arrangements that speeded the course of our research. We also appreciated the help of David Haight, Hazel Stroda, and other members of the library staff. At the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library in West Branch, lowa, Director Robert S. Wood and Archivist Dwight Miller efficiently met our

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

research needs. At the National Archives in Washington, D.C., we received invaluable assistance from Edward J. Reese in modern military records. George Hobart in prints and photographs at the Library of Congress helped us in our search for photographs. We are also grateful for the help provided by the Princeton University Libraries professional staff and the Columbia University Oral History Project. Before his retirement from the State Department, Wilmer Sparrow provided essential documentation. As part of a government economy measure, our volunteer historical advisory committee was abolished in 1977. Fortunately, before its demise, this group of distinguished historians and other scholars helped us lay a solid foundation for our research and reviewed several early chapters in draft form. We are grateful to Alfred D. Chandler, Jr., Harvard University; Thomas P. Cochran and Thomas P. Hughes, University of Pennsylvania; Richard S. Kirkendall, lowa State University; Richard W. Leopold, Northwestern University; Nancy J. Weiss, Princeton University; Davis T. Stan- XX1X ley, then at the Brookings Institution; and the late Shields Warren, New England Deaconess Hospital, for their brief but helpful service.

Our greatest debt is to the professionals and staff of the History Division who have worked with us on this project. Roger M. Anders and

Alice L. Buck served as research assistants, editors, critics, and even drafted portions of the manuscript, including all the work on the appendices and illustrations. Mrs. Buck’s skillful management of production details and Mr. Anders’s incomparable knowledge of the Commissioner’s records were indispensable to our success. Terrence Fehner spent long hours editing the manuscript and footnotes and offered valuable suggestions for improving style. Prentice Dean and Travis Hulsey also provided valuable research assistance from time to time. As she had done on previous volumes, Betty J. Wise typed the earliest draft chapters. Later Sheila Convis assumed both typing and word processing support for the project. As the book manuscript neared completion, Jeannie Raines, Pauline Robarge, Marian Scroger, and Joyce Forrest typed various draft chapters and assisted with preparation of the manuscript for publication. We cannot express suf-

ficient gratitude to the History Division team who worked skillfully and loyally to produce this book.

Finally, we wish to acknowledge the generous help provided by Richard S. Kirkendall, [owa State University; Gerald F. Tape, former Atomic Energy Commissioner; and George T. Mazuzan, chief historian at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, who read the entire manuscript in final form and offered their criticisms and suggestions for improving the text. As with all our advisers, they are not responsible for the errors or flawed interpretations that may appear in the text, but their efforts have made this a better book.

CHAPTER 1

A SECRET MISSION

It was almost nine o’clock on a rainy November morning in 1952. Remnants of a heavy ground fog still clung to the sodden terrain of the Augusta National Golf Club in Georgia. Two men in the rear seat of a nondescript sedan watched anxiously as the driver felt his way over the narrow road to the clubhouse. The fog might have seemed a convenient cover for what was a highly secret mission, but in fact it had almost prevented the travelers from making their appointment. As the car stopped at the clubhouse entrance, the two men hurried inside. After a brief conversation one of them was given a seat in the manager’s office, a small room on the ground floor. He was Roy B. Snapp, the Secretary of the United States Atomic Energy Commission. His mission was to brief General of the Armies Dwight D.

Eisenhower, who seven days earlier had been elected President of the United States.

Snapp was a natural choice for this delicate assignment. As Secretary of the Commission he was privy to the most closely held secrets of the nation’s atomic energy program, those sensitive and sometimes extraordinary bits of information that were reserved for the five Commissioners themselves. As a naval officer in World War II, Snapp had been deeply involved in military intelligence and planning when he served with the secretariat of

the Joint Chiefs of Staff. At the end of the war he was special adviser to Brigadier General Leslie R. Groves, who had spearheaded development of the atomic bomb in the Manhattan Project. He had organized the Commission’s secretariat in 1947 and was also serving as liaison officer with the National Security Council.' While waiting for the President-elect to arrive, Snapp had an opportunity to compose himself after the harried flight from Washington. The heavy fog had sent the small commercial airliner on a circuitous route,

A SECRET MISSION

which terminated in Columbia, South Carolina, rather than Augusta. Fortunately Bryan F. LaPlante, the director of the Commission’s Washington security operations, had accompanied him and was able to keep in touch with the Commission’s Savannah River Operations Office near Augusta. Prompt dispatch of a government car had made it possible for Snapp to keep his nine o’clock appointment with Eisenhower. He also had time to reflect on the incongruity of the situation: a meeting with the future President in this small unpretentious office with carefree golfers on vacation chattering and joking just outside the two open doors leading to the room. A few minutes later Snapp heard familiar voices in the hall outside. Suddenly he realized that he had a pistol under his jacket for safeguarding a top secret document he was carrying. He leaned around the doorpost at the rear of the office and alerted the Secret Service agent. By the time the agent had reassured him that “we’re all carrying guns,” Eisenhower was in

2 the room. He recognized Snapp from his visits to the Joint Chiefs’ headquarters in Washington. As Eisenhower took a chair at the manager’s desk, Snapp seated himself at the general’s elbow.

Before Snapp could open the double envelopes containing his top secret message, Eisenhower launched into a discussion of atomic energy.” The President-elect said he had been talking with Charles A. Thomas, president of Monsanto Chemical Company, who had suggested that private industry build nuclear reactors that would produce both electric power for commercial purposes and plutonium for weapons.’ As a well-known indus-

trialist with a firsthand knowledge of nuclear technology, Thomas could command attention within both the new administration and American industry. Now, six years after the Commission had assumed responsibility for the nation’s atomic energy program, industry was becoming restive over the delay in realizing the commercial application of nuclear power. While most of the nation was preoccupied with the election campaigns during autumn

1952, a clamor for a greater role in the development of atomic energy was rising among power equipment manufacturers and the electric utility industry.

Eisenhower quizzed Snapp on the feasibility of Thomas’s proposal for a dual-purpose reactor. Completely unprepared for this line of questioning, Snapp had heard enough about the idea during the preceding year to assure Eisenhower that the Commission had considered Thomas’s suggestion. In large part, the feasibility of dual-purpose reactors depended upon

whether the military services increased their requirements for nuclear weapons. Without going into details, Snapp reminded the general that the Commission’s existing production complex, plus the very large additions then under construction, would provide a truly impressive capacity. Only in recent months, when this larger capacity was nearing reality, had a dualpurpose reactor become feasible in a technical sense. At this point the general philosophized a bit, declaring his approach

A SECRET MISSION

to government in economic matters allowed private industry to do as much as it could. Snapp assured him that the Commission expected private industry to take the lead in developing civilian nuclear power. The Commission, In Snapp’s opinion, was already vigorously pursuing the development of nuclear reactors for a variety of purposes. Work was well advanced on

nuclear propulsion systems for submarines and naval ships. Snapp also pointed out that many of the nation’s largest corporations, including du Pont,

General Electric, Union Carbide, and Westinghouse, were engaged in operating production facilities and laboratories for the Commission. Snapp wanted to remind Eisenhower that under the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 the Commission was still required to maintain ownership over all nuclear facilities and fissionable material used to fuel reactors. Unless the law were changed, it would be difficult for industry to have a major role in nuclear development.

By this time, however, Eisenhower’s mind was moving in other di- 3 rections. He was reading the top secret memorandum that had required the special security precautions LaPlante had arranged for the mission.* The memorandum from Gordon E. Dean, the chairman of the Commission, related the extraordinary developments that had occurred during the nuclear weapon tests then being conducted by the Commission and the military services at the Enewetak® proving grounds in the Pacific. So awesome was the information that President Truman had asked Dean to convey the news at once to Eisenhower. “The significant event to date,” Dean wrote, “is that

we have detonated the first full-scale thermonuclear device,” which for security reasons the Commission referred to as Mike. Snapp predicted that the United States would not have a deliverable thermonuclear weapon for at least a year. When Eisenhower asked why, Snapp explained in deliberately oversimplified terms that Mike had been designed as a scientific

experiment to determine whether heavy isotopes of hydrogen could be “burned” in the fusion process. The experiment required a large device, many times bulkier and heavier than could be carried in a bomber, plus extensive associated equipment. What made Mike exceptional was the awesome power of the fusion reaction. Scientists at Enewetak estimated the blast as equivalent to more than ten million tons of TNT, or five hundred times the power of the fission weapon that devastated Hiroshima. “The island of the Atoll,” Dean wrote,

“which was used for the shot—Elugelab—is missing, and where it was there is now an underwater crater of some 1,500 yards in diameter.” Eisenhower paused to contemplate the significance of these gruesome statistics. He was troubled about the growing power of the nuclear weapons being added to the American arsenal. He favored scientific research and understood the scientists’ interests in developing more powerful and efficient weapons, but he thought there was no need “for us to build enough destructive power to destroy everything.” “Complete destruction,”

A SECRET MISSION

he said somewhat enigmatically, “was the negation of peace.” Certainly the United States needed enough force to counteract the Soviet threat, but he neither feared the Russians nor thought this kind of fear should influence American foreign policy. As Eisenhower read on, he paused occasionally to ask Snapp for an

explanation of a technical term. He was reassured to learn that the Commission had so far released no information about Mike. In fact, the weather had cooperated by keeping the remnants of the mushroom cloud over the Pacific for seven days, thus making it difficult for the Soviet Union to obtain samples and determine the nature of the explosion. Some information about

the test, however, would inevitably leak out, if only because of the size of the detonation and the brightness of the flash, visible for several hundred miles. The large number of military personnel and scientists involved in the Mike operation would also result in some leakage of information about

4 the test. There had already been a speculative story reported in Los Angeles to the effect that the United States had detonated a hydrogen bomb. The

Commission had decided, however, to issue no statement about the test until the entire series was completed. Then the Commission would release

only the cryptic words used after the 1951 series: “the test program included experiments contributing to thermonuclear weapons research.” ° This proposal disturbed Eisenhower. He saw no reason to tell the Russians anything about the tests. Only when Snapp had assured him that the statement would be exactly the same as that used in the past did E1sen-

hower relent. Then in a reflective way he added that one of the greatest problems in the military services was that they all wanted to publicize their

accomplishments. He thought it was a crime that air space reservation maps for the Commission’s Hanford plant and other installations had been issued to the public. The last portion of Dean’s letter informed Eisenhower that the Commission had prepared a top secret report describing the stockpile of nuclear weapons, the organization and operation of the agency, relationships with the President, the Department of Defense, and the Congress, and a summary of current problems facing the Commission. Eisenhower expressed a strong interest in this information, but he observed that he would have no

place to store classified material until he set up his office in the White House. In place of the written report he suggested a briefing by the Commissioners, preferably in New York because it would be “very awkward” for him to be in Washington before the inauguration. When Snapp assured him that the Commissioners would be glad to go to New York, Eisenhower called his secretary and scheduled a two-hour meeting for the morning of November 20 at his temporary headquarters in the Commodore Hotel. Snapp had completed his mission, but the relaxed President-elect had still more questions about the Commission’s facilities. Snapp described the complex production chain from uranium ore to finished metal. The ex-

A SECRET MISSION

pansion program, Snapp stressed, was a truly ambitious commitment on the Commission’s part, one that did involve some risk. The Commission at that

time had assured supplies of uranium ore sufficient to satisfy only half the capacity of the production chain when the expansion program was completed. ’

Eisenhower was obviously pleased, observing that he had always had high regard for the Commission. He thought the present Commission under Gordon Dean was doing an excellent job, and he looked forward to the meeting in New York. The Commission’s program involved some of the

most difficult and far-reaching issues facing the new administration, and Eisenhower intended to give it high priority. His interest in the Thomas proposal showed that he recognized the peaceful potential of nuclear power. Although he accepted the key role of nuclear weapons in national defense, he did not overlook the enormous dangers that the existence of the nuclear

stockpile posed. From Snapp’s comments about the size of the Commis- ) sion’s budget and the growth of the stockpile, Eisenhower detected the fact that nuclear weapons were relatively cheap and getting cheaper. He ex-

pressed to Snapp his concern that some junior officer might decide that they could be used like other weapons. To Snapp such a statement carried special weight when it came from one of Eisenhower’s background. The first thing Snapp did after the meeting was to burn the top secret document. On the plane back to Washington he tried to jot down the details of the conversation. Immediately after his return he would have to report to the Commissioners and begin preparations for the briefing in New York on the following Wednesday. Dean was encouraged by Eisenhower’s reaction to his letter. He un-

derstood how important it was for the President-elect to understand the Commission’s activities and especially its role in policy formulation. Dean had cut his teeth as a Commissioner on the painful decisions that followed the detonation of the first Soviet nuclear device in August 1949. In formulating a response to the Soviet challenge Dean had demonstrated his ability

for clear thinking and independent action. Although a majority of his colleagues opposed accelerating development of a thermonuclear weapon, Dean had concluded that the project was imperative, if regrettable. With Dean’s support, forces in Congress and the Executive Branch convinced

Truman to make his historic decision on January 31, 1950, to give the thermonuclear weapon top priority.® In addition to being a law professor, Dean had served in the criminal division of the Department of Justice during the New Deal years and as executive assistant to two Democratic attorneys general. The fact that he had been a partner in a Washington law firm with the late Senator Brien McMahon, chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, also explained his appointment to some veterans of the Washington scene. Dean, however, had justified the confidence the President had expressed in him by appointing him chairman in summer 1950.

A SECRET MISSION

Dean had proved himself an uncommonly able administrator, one who could find his way through the snarls and snags of controversy that entangled the

Commission and come up with reasonably clear policies. He could also hold his own with Cabinet officers and the President’s staff. But with Republicans in control of the White House and the Congress, Dean’s power was in eclipse. He expected to leave the Commission when his term expired on June 30, 1953, if not before. In preparing for the New York meeting, Dean relied upon Snapp and Edward R. Trapnell to gather materials from the staff. Trapnell had worked in Washington as a newspaper reporter and government public information officer before World War II. He then entered the atomic energy project in 1945 as a public relations adviser to General Groves, helped to set up the Commission’s public information staff in 1947, and took charge of congressional relations in 1952. With all the charm of a Virginia gentleman, Trap-

6 nell could use his excellent knowledge of the Commission to accomplish the most sensitive of missions. Because he had heard of Eisenhower’s preference for terse, graphic presentations, Trapnell elected to prepare a briefing book that would summarize the essential facts on large poster cards.° Early in the presentation Trapnell included a budget summary:

Atomic Energy Department

Fiscal Commission of Defense

Year (in billions of $) (in billions of $)

1951 2.0 47.8 1952 1.6 o2.1 61.0 1953 4.1

Trapnell placed on the same display card the explosive equivalent of the nuclear stockpile as it had existed at the end of World War II, as it stood at the time of the briefing, and as it was projected for 1956 and 1966. The top secret figures supported Eisenhower's observation that nuclear weapons were relatively cheap and getting cheaper. Other charts explained the principal features of the implosion type

of fission weapon as consisting of a spherical core of fissionable material (either plutonium or uranium-235) surrounded by concentric spheres of natural uranium and high explosives. The latter consisted of shaped charges or “lenses” of different kinds of explosives so designed that the shock wave initiated on the outside of the weapon would uniformly implode the core and set off the chain reaction. A chart of the six weapon types then

being produced for the stockpile revealed that the yields could be varied by changing the nuclear components. Because the recent test of the thermonuclear device was considered the most sensitive bit of information on

A SECRET MISSION

weapon development, the chart showed only that Mike was twenty feet high, almost eight feet in diameter, and weighed eighty-two tons. Another chart presented a simplified version of the vast complex of plants and laboratories that produced the stockpile: uranium mills and sampling stations, feed material plants, huge reactors for producing plutonium and tritium, and mammoth gaseous-diffusion plants for producing uranium-

235. Oak Ridge fabricated the uranium parts for weapons while a new Commission facility in Colorado finished the plutonium parts and assembled the nuclear cores for weapons then in the stockpile. The nonnuclear components were produced by contractors and suppliers too numerous to mention in the Eisenhower briefing. But Trapnell’s chart did include several plants: Burlington, lowa, and Amarillo, Texas, produced the shaped charges of high explosives; the Mound Laboratory at Miamisburg, Ohio, manufactured the high-explosive detonators and neu-

tron initiators; and the Kansas City plant assembled most mechanical and 7 electrical components. Overseeing the entire weapon production chain, the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory and the Sandia Laboratory, both in New Mexico, were responsible for all research and development of nuclear and nonnuclear components, respectively. The chart did not even mention the new weapon laboratory at Livermore, California, which with Los Alamos

would conduct all tests of new weapon designs at both the Pacific and Nevada sites. For at least five years, if not from the very beginning of the Commission’s existence, the production of fissionable materials and nuclear weap-

ons for military purposes had been the primary mission. But the Commission also had broad responsibilities for generally developing nuclear science and technology and making available the results of this work for a

wide range of industrial, medical, and scientific applications. A few of these applications, particularly the development of nuclear power, would contribute obviously and directly to the military and civilian objectives of the federal government. Thus, Dean asked Trapnell to give substantial attention to the Commission’s reactor development efforts. The Eisenhower presentation included a photograph and diagram of the first generation of nuclear power in an experimental breeder reactor in 1951, a photograph of the land-based prototype of a nuclear-powered submarine nearing comple-

tion at the national reactor testing station in Idaho, and descriptions of several approaches to a nuclear-powered aircraft that were being studied at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Dean made certain that the briefing contained a clear statement on the Commission’s plans for stimulating industrial development of nuclear power. With the Commission’s encouragement, four industrial teams had already completed feasibility studies of nuclear power and had submitted proposals for joint ventures with the Commission in building nuclear power

A SECRET MISSION

plants. A fifth industrial team was just then starting its own study, and other groups were interested. In addition to amending the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, the Commission faced a critical policy question in determining how the first companies having favored access to nuclear technology would be prevented from obtaining an unfair advantage over others.

Although the long-term outlook for producing economic electric power from nuclear fuel was good, the Commission made clear in the briefing materials that this goal would not be reached easily or quickly. The first practical use of electrical power would be in a submarine, where cost was

not controlling. The development of submarine propulsion systems and other reactors for the military, however, would advance the technology of civilian power systems. As for the suggestion that industry build dualpurpose reactors, the Commission reiterated Snapp’s judgment that feasibility of the idea would depend upon a continuing demand for nuclear

8 weapon materials. The Commission proposed to place a much heavier investment in developing breeder reactors that would substantially improve the economics of nuclear power and the use of raw materials. For the purposes of the Eisenhower briefing, the Commission found it more difficult to describe its basic research in the physical and biomedical sciences. The Commission saw its first responsibility in biology and medicine as safeguarding the health of atomic energy workers and the civilian population in general from the harmful effects of radiation, whether from normal Commission operations, weapon tests, or enemy attack. But beyond this, the Commission felt an obligation to exploit the beneficial uses of atomic energy in studying and treating such diseases as cancer, in improving soil management and crop yield for agriculture, in developing new varieties of useful plants, in studying growth, nutrition, and the biological functions of plants and animals, and in using radioactive tracers to study living systems. Research was performed in the Commission’s Oak Ridge, Argonne, and Brookhaven national laboratories and was supported by the Commission in 250 colleges, universities, hospitals, and private research institutions. The Commission predicated its far-reaching research efforts in the physical sciences on the assumption that scientific knowledge provided the essential foundation for future technology. A better understanding of the physical universe would stimulate more economical production processes and new scientific applications. The research process itself would enhance the nation’s scientific and technical capabilities and thus contribute to national security. As these statements appeared on the briefing charts, they smacked of platitudes; but they did reflect the honest assumptions on which the Commission’s physical research program rested. The Commission’s six laboratories engaged in physical research employed nearly one thousand scientists using facilities costing $200 million. Fifteen hundred scientists worked on projects of interest to the Commission in ninety universities and

A SECRET MISSION

private research institutes provided with government-owned equipment worth $4 million. The preeminence of the United States in the nuclear sciences by 1952 was almost entirely the result of the magnitude and effectiveness of Commission support. Even this brief survey of Commission activities both in production and research made clear the exceptional diversification of resources in at least three senses. Organizationally the Commission was highly decentral-

ized as a result of the conscious efforts of David E. Lilienthal, the first chairman, and his associates when they created the agency. The field managers of the nine operations offices exercised a large degree of independent authority and actually supervised most of the Commission’s employees. Of the 6,600 employees on the Commission’s rolls in November 1952, only 1,600 were stationed in Washington. Almost as many reported to the direc-

tor of the Santa Fe operations office, which directed the Commission’s

weapon activities in the field, and more than one thousand were assigned 9 at Oak Ridge.'° Diversification also took the form of geographical dispersion. Although many old-line executive departments, such as the Departments of the Army and Agriculture, had employees in all forty-eight states, few had major installations in such widely separated regions of the nation. The Army had established the pattern of dispersal during World War II in the interests of secrecy and military security. In a day before air travel had become commonplace, it was no easy task for headquarters officials to maintain effective communications and management control over the huge but remote installations in Tennessee, New Mexico, and Washington State. Since taking over the atomic energy project in 1947, the Commission, if anything, had further dispersed its activities to include key installations in Idaho, Nevada, South Carolina, Kentucky, and the atolls of the Pacific. Another form of diversification rested upon the Commission’s decision to continue the Army’s policy of relying mostly upon private contractors working in government-owned facilities to perform both production and research functions. Employment figures demonstrated the extent of the Commission’s reliance on contractors. Compared to the 6,600 government employees in November 1952, there were more than 137,000 contractor employees, of whom 62,000 were engaged in operational activities and 75,000 were working on construction projects. Among the contractors were some of the largest and best known corporations in the country (see Table 1). Dean’s busy schedule left him little time to review the briefing cards that Snapp and Trapnell were preparing, but he did find a few moments to

dictate three pages as an introduction.'' Dean’s first concern was that the new President understand the roles that the White House, the Department of Defense, and the Commission had in determining national policy on nuclear weapons. He wanted to stress that the Commission had never at-

A SECRET MISSION

Table | Major AEC Contractors PRODUCTION

Contractor Installation Job General Electric Hanford, WA Plutonium Union Carbide and Carbon Oak Ridge, TN U-235 Paducah, KY

Western Electric—Bell Lab. Sandia Lab., NM Weapons (AT&T)

Bendix Aviation Kansas City, MO Weapon Parts Monsanto Chemical Mound Lab., OH Weapon Initiators

E. I. du Pont de Nemours Dana, IN Heavy Water

10 Processing Plant

American Cyanamid Reactor Testing Station, ID Operate Chemical

Phillips Petroleum Reactor Testing Station, ID Operate Materials Testing Reactor

Dow Chemical Rocky Flats, CO Weapon Parts RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Contractor Installation Job University of California Los Alamos Scientific Weapons Laboratory, NM

Radiation Laboratory, Basic Research Berkeley, CA

Union Carbide and Carbon Oak Ridge National Labo- Research and

ratory, TN Development

University of Chicago Argonne National Labora- Reactor Development tory, IL

Associated Universities Brookhaven National Labo- Basic Research ratory, NY

Westinghouse Electric Pittsburgh, PA Reactor Development tempted to judge what weapon requirements should be in terms of numbers. The Joint Chiefs of Staff initiated requirements for review by the Secretary of Defense and the President. The Commission simply advised the Secre-

tary and the President whether it would be feasible to meet the requirements in terms of dollars, manpower, and critical materials. At the same time, Dean noted, the Commission did have an important function in providing the basic weapon designs that ultimately became the source of military requirements. In the production and allocation of special nuclear materials such as plutonium, uranium-235, and tritium, the Atomic Energy Act required

A SECRET MISSION

Table 1, cont. Major AEC Contractors RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Contractor Installation Job California Research and Livermore, CA Reactor Development Development Co. (sub. of S.O. of CA)

General Electric Knolls Atomic Power Labo- Reactor Development ratory, NY

Iowa State College Ames Laboratory, [A Metallurgy University of Rochester Rochester, NY Biology and Medicine

CONSTRUCTION 1" Estimated Cost in

Company Site Project Millions du Pont Savannah River, SC 6 Heavy Water Reactors $ 1.5 Peter Kiewit & Sons Portsmouth, OH U-235 Gaseous Diffusion 1.3 Plants, X 25-33

F. H. McGraw Paducah, KY U-235 Gaseous Diffusion 922.0 Plants, C 31-37

Maxon Construction Oak Ridge, TN U-235 Gaseous Diffusion 462.0 Plant, K-33

Alloy Development Plant 39.0

Henry J. Kaiser Co. Hanford, WA 2 Graphite Reactors 260.0

Girdler Corp. - Dana, IN Heavy Water Plants 104.0 George A. Fuller Fernald, OH Feed Materials Produc- 78.0 tion Center

Atkinson-Jones Hanford, WA 1 Graphite Reactor 64.0 Construction Co.

Austin Company Rocky Flats, CO Weapon Facility 45.0 Bechtel Corp. Reactor Testing Chemical Processing 34.0

Station, ID Plant

a presidential determination annually. The Commission used the military requirements from the Joint Chiefs and its own estimates of how much material could be produced in drafting the determination, which was submitted jointly by the Commission and the Secretary of Defense. Although the chairman of the Commission was not a member of the National Security Council, he had served from time to time on a special committee of the council that had included the Secretaries of Defense and State. The special

committee had advised the President on such important matters as the acceleration of thermonuclear weapon development in 1950 and the $3billion expansion of production facilities approved in January 1952. With-

A SECRET MISSION

out explicitly claiming a role in policy formulation in the White House, Dean wanted to make clear that there was a precedent for Commission participation. Dean hurried from one appointment to another on Tuesday, Novem-

ber 18. That evening he spoke to the Kiwanis Club in nearby Rockville, Maryland, and then took the overnight sleeper train to New York.'? Also riding on the train were Snapp, Trapnell with the clumsy leather portfolio containing the briefing charts, and LaPlante, who served as a security escort. To avoid the possibility that someone might recognize them and guess that the entire Commission was going to New York to see Eisenhower, the Commissioners had decided to travel separately. There was something bizarre about the members of the Atomic Energy Commission sneaking off to New York for a meeting with the Presidentelect. In this instance, as in Snapp’s trip to Augusta, the reason lay in the

12 Enewetak test. The Commissioners had hoped that even the simple fact that the test had occurred would be concealed from the Soviet Union, if only to avoid providing a stimulus for a similar effort in that country. At the very least, it was important to conceal the information as long as possible so that scientists in other countries would miss the fleeting opportunity to collect samples of airborne debris that would provide information about the nature of the test. But even beyond these considerations, a curious silence surrounded anything related to the hydrogen bomb. The enormous magnitude of its implications was almost too terrifying to contemplate. Even the

Commissioners and those few members of the staff used to discussing the subject could not speak casually in the awesome presence of the bomb. This partially subconscious restraint, as well as the more obvious security considerations, caused the Commissioners to hope that they could meet Eisenhower without arousing further public curiosity about the Enewetak event. Commissioner Henry D. Smyth, the Princeton physicist who had written the famous Smyth report on the wartime atomic energy program, boarded the train alone. Appointed to the Commission with Dean in May 1949, Smyth by reason of seniority and his extensive knowledge of nuclear science and technology was an especially influential member of the Com-

mission. The son of a university professor, Smyth had spent almost his entire life at Princeton, first as a child, then as a Princeton student, and later as a member of the physics department. Smyth’s Ivy League background and his standing in the academic world as much as his capabilities as a physicist made him a valuable asset to both the wartime Manhattan Project and the current Commission. His soft-spoken and reflective manner marked him as a scholar who could exercise the detached judgment of a scientist. But he was also a man of strong principles. More than once, especially on the thermonuclear weapon decision, he had proved himself capable of fighting tenaciously for his convictions.

A SECRET MISSION

In the morning the members of the group made their separate ways from Pennsylvania Station to 686 Park Avenue, the apartment of Commissioner Thomas Ek. Murray. At sixty-one, Murray was the oldest member of the Commission. Thin, sober, and tight-lipped, Murray personified the gray eminence. His stern sense of morality grounded in an intense loyalty to the Roman Catholic Church influenced all his thoughts and actions; he saw his Commissioner duty as one of defending his nation and his church against atheistic communism. A Yale graduate in 1911, Murray had established himself as a highly successful engineer and business executive in New York. He had two hundred patents to his credit, and by the time he was appointed to the Commission in March 1950 he had been president of his own company, board member of his family company and several large corporations, trustee of several banks, and receiver of the Interborough subway system. A conservative Democrat, Murray brought to the Commission

a shrewd, analytical mind, the hard-headed practicality of an engineer, and 13 an unswerving determination to keep the United States second to none in nuclear technology.

Breakfast at Murray’s apartment gave Dean and his colleagues a chance to discuss the strategy for their meeting with Eisenhower. Shortly before nine they left for the Commodore Hotel, where they were to meet the fourth Commissioner, Eugene M. Zuckert. Like Murray a Democrat, a New Yorker, and a Yale alumnus, Zuckert was the youngest member of the Commission. After a few years as an attorney with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Zuckert had joined the faculty of the Harvard business school

and organized the first advanced management course ever offered there. During most of World War II Zuckert directed a training program in statistical control for Air Force officers and served briefly as a naval officer in a management position. After the war Zuckert became a protégé of W. Stuart Symington and served as his special assistant in the Surplus Property Administration, the War Department, and the Department of the Air Force, where he became assistant secretary in 1947. As a member of the Commission since February 1952, Zuckert had taken a strong interest in management. Stull young and aggressive, he could be blunt and outspoken with both his fellow Commissioners and the staff. By the time the Commissioners had reached the Commodore, Snapp, Trapnell, and LaPlante had already arrived at the service entrance and had taken a freight elevator to the seventh floor. After the Commissioners arrived, the entire group used a back stairway to reach the Eisenhower suite on the sixth floor. Only in this way could they avoid the horde of reporters stationed in the lobby. While Trapnell put the charts in order, Snapp introduced the Com-

missioners.'!? Dean remarked that the Commission had nothing of paramount importance to present, but he thought he should bring Eisenhower up-to-date on the thermonuclear test. Dean expressed his regret that there

A SECRET MISSION

had been so many security leaks about the recent test. Some military personnel attached to the operation at Enewetak had written letters home describing the tests, and the newspapers had picked up the story. This comment triggered an outburst from Eisenhower, who did not even wait for Snapp and Trapnell to leave the room. He said he could not understand why security could not be better, citing “that Smith report” in summer 1945 that gave away much vital information about the atomic energy project and particularly the exact location of the production plants. Perhaps trying to save Eisenhower from embarrassment, Dean mentioned that Smyth, the author of the report, was in the room. This information did not deter Eisenhower at all as he continued to denounce the report for giving away too many details to no purpose. By this time Snapp and Trapnell had left, and Dean pulled out his three pages of opening remarks. In a conversational style he gave a few

14 words of background about each Commissioner and noted one vacancy to be filled. Then Dean turned to his presentation. Many of Eisenhower’s reactions were similar to those he had expressed in Augusta. When Dean explained the thermonuclear test, Eisenhower returned to the question of secrecy. He said he wished the Commission could keep all information about the test out of print. He would have preferred that the Russians find out about it on their own; his theory was

that it would upset the Russians if they came to the conclusion that the United States had progressed so far in weapon development without boasting about it. The Russians, in Eisenhower’s opinion, expected the Americans to brag about everything they did, and silence would throw them off balance. During most of the briefing Eisenhower took no particular exception to the Commission’s presentation. He thought the projection of a $4-billion budget in fiscal year 1953 was reasonable in terms of an $80-billion federal budget. He again expressed his doubts that the Russians were looking for a chance to start a war or to use nuclear weapons. Only when Dean came to the chart on nuclear-propelled aircraft did Eisenhower react. He was dismayed that the Commission was spending so much money on such a fanciful idea. Zuckert attempted to reply by suggesting that the Commission was merely trying to provide what the Air Force wanted. Eisenhower interrupted and pulled himself out of his chair. Looking out the window he declared that this kind of reasoning was wrong. If a civilian agency like the Commission thought a military requirement was untenable or wasteful in terms of existing technology, there was an obligation to oppose it. He hoped to establish a board of outstanding industrialists and scientists who could review projects like this one. Nuclear propulsion for submarines was a different matter—that made sense. The last few briefing charts described the Commission’s plans for encouraging industrial development of nuclear power plants. Eisenhower

A SECRET MISSION

again mentioned his conversation with Charles Thomas and his interest in involving private participation as much as possible. Toward the end, Ekisenhower again brought up the general question of security and expressed great confidence in J. Edgar Hoover, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). It was almost eleven o’clock when the Commissioners took their leave after a full and useful briefing. The following Monday Dean called Truman to report on the session with Eisenhower. Dean explained that no one except those present knew about the briefing and he was trying to keep it quiet. Truman said he was pleased to hear about it because he wanted the incoming President to have as much information as possible. '* Certainly the session with the Commission had been helpful to Eisenhower. From the nature of his questions, it was apparent that he had had very little understanding of either the military or civilian aspects of the

atomic energy program before the election. From the briefing the Commis- 15 sioners could conclude that the new President now had some conception of the size and nature of the nuclear weapon stockpile and the growing capacity for producing special nuclear materials and weapons. On the peaceful side, Eisenhower now had some comprehension of the wide-ranging capabilities of the scientists and engineers supported by the Commission for exploiting the beneficial aspects of nuclear technology. One of the most intriguing possibilities was using nuclear power to generate electricity. For their own part, the Commissioners also acquired some helpful

intelligence during their visit to New York. They could not help but be impressed by Eisenhower's intense interest in atomic energy. The subject had been high on his agenda during his stay in Augusta, and he had given the Commissioners two hours in New York when prospective cabinet offcers and leading Republican senators could command only a few minutes of his time. It was also clear that Eisenhower fully supported the Commission’s efforts rapidly to enlarge the arsenal of nuclear weapons and to maintain that strength as a bastion of national security.

At the same time, the new President displayed a remarkable ambivalence about nuclear energy. Perhaps only a man with Eisenhower's experience in leading his nation in what was believed its greatest military operation could be as sensitive as he was to the extraordinary dangers inherent in the possession of so much physical power. Eisenhower seemed to understand the possibilities for human failure, misdirected ambition, intrigue, treachery, and death in the nuclear era. Thus, behind Kisenhower’s realism was an intense concern with secrecy and security. This penchant of the new President would manifest itself in other parts of his Administration, but nowhere else would it have greater impact than in the Commission’s programs. Finally, Eisenhower had demonstrated his dedication to economy in government, in terms of both funding and federal power. Surely this attitude had profound implications for an agency with unprecedented

A SECRET MISSION

authority and largess in the development of a new and frightening technology. Eisenhower seemed determined to see the atom developed for both peaceful and military uses, but in a way counter to some of the strongest trends toward the aggrandizement of power in the federal government during twenty years of Democratic administrations. With the Eisenhower victory in 1952, a new day was dawning for both the nation and the Commission. To that change and challenge the Commission would have to respond.

16

CHAPTER 2

THE EISENHOWER

IMPRINT

The Commission’s secret session with the President-elect on November 19,

1952, provided a valuable insight into Eisenhower’s character and interests. It left on the Commissioners an indelible impression of the exceptional import the new chief executive would attach to both the military and civilian uses of atomic energy. But the brief session in New York did not give the Commissioners any degree of permanent entrée to the new President or his Administration. After twenty years in the political wilderness, Republican leaders, especially in the Congress, eagerly anticipated the opportu-

nity to overhaul the vast bureaucracy they attributed to five Democratic administrations. Whatever personal confidence Eisenhower may have had in the Commissioners, as Truman holdovers they were not to be welcomed into the new Administration’s official family. Roy Snapp, the Commission’s

secretary, had to go hat in hand to the Republicans for invitations that would permit the Commission to participate in the inauguration. ! Reading the newsclips during the seven weeks between the election and the inauguration, the Commissioners could get some sense of the imprint Eisenhower was attempting to make on the bureaucracy and the nation. The announcement of most Cabinet posts two days after the Commo-

dore meeting made clear that American industry with its conservative economic principles would have a strong voice in the new Administration. President of General Motors Charles E. Wilson, named Secretary of Defense, reinforced that theme a few weeks later by selecting four industrialists to fill the positions of the deputy secretary and the three service secretaries. The nomination of John Foster Dulles to Secretary of State and the President-elect’s trip to Korea early in December revealed a determination to take new and decisive initiatives in international affairs. On the cruiser Helena returning from Guam to Honolulu, Eisenhower discussed possible

THE EISENHOWER IMPRINT

ways of cutting the Truman budget. His “team” included Dulles and Wilson; Treasury Secretary-designate George M. Humphrey; Douglas McKay, who would become Secretary of the Interior; Joseph M. Dodge, the future director of the Bureau of the Budget; and General Lucius D. Clay.’ The geographical distance between the Helena and the Commission’s head-

quarters building on Constitution Avenue in Washington was no greater than the figurative displacement of the Commissioners from the center of power in the new Administration.

NEW PRIORITIES

Even before the November conference with Eisenhower, Dean and his fellow Commissioners had understood the need for new priorities in a new

18 Administration. Their secret conference with the President-elect and more public evidence of the course Eisenhower intended to follow reinforced Dean’s impression that a major reorientation in the Commission’s programs would be necessary, but such adjustments were never easy. Additional resources in terms of larger budgets and more personnel seldom accompanied new requirements. Somehow the Commission would have to produce more with the same or smaller resources. By late January 1953, Dean could almost guess what the Eisenhower

impact would be. First, the President obviously desired to build a strong nuclear arm as part of the nation’s defense; that interest would require more nuclear weapons and materials. At the same time Dean could not overlook

the Republicans’ interest in reducing federal expenditures and reversing what they saw as an invasion of the sphere of private industry by the government in two decades of Democratic rule. Although Dean and most of his fellow Commissioners were conservative in terms of economic policy, this latter concern of the Republicans posed potential difficulties. Since Octo-

ber 1950, the Commission had been engaged in a vast expansion of its facilities for producing special nuclear materials and weapons. The budget for fiscal year 1954, which Truman had approved late in 1952, included $1.156 billion for operating expenses and $436 million for plant and equipment, compared to the 1950 figures of $414 million for operations and $256 million for plant and equipment. The almost threefold increase in operating expenses reflected only the beginning of the heavy funding requirements that the Commission would face as new plants still under construction were completed.’ Huge plants were under construction to increase capacity at each step in the production chain: the new feed materials production center at

Fernald, Ohio; a plant to produce large quantities of lithium-6 at Oak Ridge; a third and fourth gaseous-diffusion plant at Paducah, Kentucky; a whole new gaseous-diffusion complex at Portsmouth, Ohio; two “jumbo”

THE EISENHOWER IMPRINT

reactors and a separation plant for producing plutonium at Hanford; and five heavy-water reactors at the Savannah River site in South Carolina for producing tritium from lithium-6 as well as plutonium. In the nationwide weapon production network, there was much activity: the new weapon assembly plant at Rocky Flats, Colorado; a major expansion of research facilities at Los Alamos; new buildings at Albuquerque, New Mexico, Burlington, Iowa, Livermore, California, and Amarillo, Texas. Plans had already been completed for testing eight weapon devices at the Nevada Proving Ground in spring 1953 and for another series including full-scale thermonuclear weapons in the Pacific beginning late in the year. The Commission’s expansion program represented one of the greatest federal construction projects in peacetime history.* The astronomical figures in the President’s 1954 budget were still more than $800 million below the Commission’s original request, the larg-

est dollar cut falling on production facilities. Most significant, however, 19 was the $176-million cut in obligations for reactor development facilities, which represented a reduction of 77 percent in the Commission’s request. This substantial reduction reflected a lack of confidence in the Commission’s efforts to reorient its reactor development efforts from plutonium production units to civilian power reactors. Within a few days after Truman sent his budget to the Congress, the Bureau of the Budget announced its intention to review the entire document

against the new Administration’s own priorities. On February 3, 1953, Budget Director Dodge informed all executive departments and agencies of the need not only to set new priorities but also to balance the federal budget.” A few discreet inquiries by the Commission’s budget staff indicated that Dodge’s admonitions were not to be taken literally; the Commission

would be permitted to increase its personnel ceiling to meet the needs of its expanding program.° The Commission’s primary defense against budget cuts was to cite the rapid growth of the military program. As Dean explained to the National

Security Council in February, it was not possible to reduce expenditures and at the same time continue to produce nuclear materials and weapons at ever increasing rates in the new production plants that would be coming into operation. On this point the Commission presented a united front with the military services. A week earlier Dean had told the military liaison committee, the statutory group of officers charged with advising the Commission on military applications of nuclear energy, that recent improvements in the operation of the Hanford reactors and design changes in the Savannah River plants would enable the Commission to exceed the original goals of the 1952 expansion program. The Commission thus had been able to save funds, as Dodge had ordered, by cancelling a sixth reactor at Savannah River. The members of the military liaison committee, however, bristled at the idea of reducing fissionable material production for weapons

THE EISENHOWER IMPRINT

and assured Dean that if they had known that greater production would be possible, they would have raised the production targets for the expansion program. ‘

For several years Dean had been irritated by the unwillingness of the Department of Defense to set firm requirements. Now that the Commission was faced with substantial budget cuts, it was imperative for the Department of Defense to make firm commitments. If cuts were required, how

large should they be in materials for weapons, nuclear submarines, the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and the nuclear-powered bomber? Dean complained to Defense Secretary Wilson: “To assume . . . that some arbitrary figure must be taken from the atomic energy program would seem to run counter to the principle that choices must be made.” Yet Dodge, perhaps at the suggestion of Wilson, took just this approach in a proposal that Eisenhower approved in March 1953. Because the Commission’s budget

20 was “essentially determined by the Defense Department requirements,” the National Security Council should evaluate the Defense and Commission budgets together. The study was to be coordinated by the new assistant to the President for atomic energy matters, Lewis L. Strauss.® Strauss had been one of the original Commissioners appointed by

Truman in 1946. The son of a shoe merchant in Richmond, Virginia, Strauss had made his own way in the world. At the age of twenty in 1917, he talked himself into a position on Herbert Hoover’s staff in organizing the Food Administration and later served as Hoover’s personal secretary on the

Belgian relief mission. Strauss then made his mark on Wall Street with the international banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Company. During World War Il he served in the naval reserve on James V. Forrestal’s staff and retired in 1945 with the rank of rear admiral. During his three years on the Commission Strauss established himself as hard-working and conscientious, if somewhat overbearing in advancing his opinions. He took a great interest in matters of security and intelligence, took credit for establishing the long-range detection system that had revealed the Soviet nuclear

test in August 1949, and led the uphill fight with Dean to accelerate the development of the hydrogen bomb. With that accomplished, Strauss re-

turned to his financial career in New York but continued to serve as a consultant to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy in evaluating the adequacy of the Commission’s production efforts. Although a conservative Re-

publican in the Taft wing of the party, Strauss maintained his friendship with Dean. The two occasionally had lunch together and kept in touch by telephone. Strauss had no desires or expectations to return to federal service even after Eisenhower's election. He had scarcely known Eisenhower and

had not supported Eisenhower’s drive for the Republican nomination. Strauss was therefore surprised when the President called him home from

a Caribbean vacation in late February 1953 and asked him to make an

THE EISENHOWER IMPRINT

independent study of the atomic energy program. Within a few weeks E1senhower suggested that Strauss take over the chairmanship of the Com-

mission from Dean, who had announced on February 10 that he would retire within three months. Strauss refused the offer on the grounds that the Commission’s chairman was necessarily involved in a large number of routine matters that prevented him from giving full attention to larger policy issues. Strauss thought he could better serve the Administration as special assistant to the President for atomic energy matters, and Kisenhower approved the appointment on March 7, 1953.° Dean was delighted with Strauss’s appointment. Not only did the two men understand each other, but Strauss was also knowledgeable about the Commission. Furthermore his interest in the expansion program suggested

that he would fight for an adequate Commission budget. Dean offered Strauss full cooperation in preparing his report to the National Security

Council.'° In the meantime, Dean was turning his attention to the difficult 2] question of formulating a policy for developing nuclear power.

NUCLEAR POWER: SEARCH FOR A POLICY

Long before the budget uncertainties of 1953 arose, Dean and his fellow Commissioners had seen the need for a clear-cut policy on nuclear power development. The sharp cuts that the Truman Administration had made in the Commission’s reactor development budget reflected the failure to formulate a coherent plan in the face of the extraordinary pressures and conflicting demands of the expansion program. Dean himself recognized these shortcomings a few days before the inauguration. He wrote the other Commissioners that “we have been too indecisive” in responding to proposals from industry,!! and the lack of direction in the Commission’s reactor program was in part a result of that indecision. The fact was that public interest in nuclear power had overtaken the Commission’s diffuse and largely ineffective efforts to formulate a policy. The Commission’s own accomplishments in developing new types of

power reactors were in part responsible for the rise in public interest. In June 1952, Truman had caught the nation’s attention in laying the keel for the world’s first nuclear-powered submarine, an event that seemed to bring nuclear power close to reality. In October the Commission released the hitherto classified information that a small experimental breeder reactor, designed and built by the Commission’s Argonne laboratory, had actually generated electricity from nuclear power and was proceeding to test the principle of breeding.'? These accomplishments, plus the enthusiastic reports of the four industrial study groups that had been admitted behind the Commission’s security barriers, gave public interest in nuclear power a stimulus it had not experienced since 1945.

THE EISENHOWER IMPRINT

Reflecting this new enthusiasm, the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy had been proposing for six months to hold hearings on the Commis-

sion’s plan for industrial development of nuclear power. During autumn 1952, the committee staff had compiled a four-hundred-page volume of information, Atomic Power and Private Enterprise.'* The committee’s own statement reflected the conviction that the Commission’s activities in developing plutonium production reactors, power reactor experiments, and military propulsion reactors had demonstrated the feasibility of nuclear power. The great question was how much it would cost. The Joint Committee summarized industry’s role since 1947 in developing nuclear power, largely under Commission contracts; but most interesting of all were the results of an informal opinion survey of “company

execulives, government officials, scientists, lawyers, and others” in fall 1952. There was general agreement that the Commission should develop

22 prototype reactors, but opinion on the government’s role in building fullscale units ranged from full support to no support. There were three alternatives for ownership of reactors, fissionable material, and handling facilities: exclusive government ownership; permissive, licensed private ownership; or mandatory exclusive private ownership subject to government regulation. Government financing of reactor development at least through the prototype stage was generally accepted. Some scientists believed that complete government financing would bring the quickest results, but many business executives thought industry could build the full-scale plants if the

government offered reasonable tax advantages and subsidies. Within industry some feared that the Commission under existing legislation would compete with private efforts to build power reactors. Industry spokesmen in general advocated revising the existing law to permit more nearly normal

operation of the free enterprise system. Others, including many lawyers and government officials, opposed changing the law until the Commission had built a prototype power reactor and the needs for revision were clearer; some argued that revising the law would cause all planning to stop for six months while Congress debated the issue and another twelve months while the new legal provisions were being studied. The Joint Committee report made clear several points: first, techno-

logical developments had created a broad interest in nuclear power; second, development of nuclear power would require administrative and financial arrangements not possible under the existing Atomic Energy Act; and third, the new interest in nuclear power was becoming the principal incentive for a fundamental revision of the act. Redefining the relationships between government and industry in the atomic energy enterprise, however, involved a host of political, economic, and social issues that only extended discussion and debate could settle. Even in summary form, Atomic Power and Private Enterprise indicated the extraordinarily complex issues facing the Commission in devising

THE EISENHOWER IMPRINT

a nuclear power policy. The Commission’s staff was not well equipped to handle issues of this nature. Reactor development had been approached almost entirely as a technical problem by scientists and engineers. The division of reactor development, headed by physicist and engineer Lawrence R. Hafstad, had been forced to concentrate its efforts almost entirely on production and military propulsion reactors. Not much more than onetenth of the operating funds for reactor development were going directly into power reactor projects. Even if Hafstad and his engineers had been able to give more thought to power reactor systems, they would have found it hard to address the relevant political and economic questions. That fact was Clear in late 1952 when Hafstad presented to the Commission a plan for reorienting the Commission’s efforts. Essentially an engineering analysis, the proposal did not consider many larger issues raised in the Joint Committee report. '*

William Lee Davidson, who for seven months had been director of 23 industrial development, came closer to the mark in January 1953, when he briefed the Commissioners. Davidson was also a scientist, having come to the Commission from the research division of the B. F. Goodrich Company, but he at least had an industrial perspective if not the talents of an economist.'> Working with Hafstad, Davidson proposed a “moderately expedited development program,” intended to promote reactors capable of producing significant amounts of commercially competitive power within a decade.

The existing Commission program of working through industrial study groups would take at least fifteen years. Davidson’s proposal, costing about $100 million over ten years, would encourage private projects without offering direct financial support, government financing of small pilot plants, and possibly Commission construction of one nuclear power plant for its military or prestige value. '® By late February 1953, Davidson’s ideas had been transformed into a succinct Commission policy statement for the President.'’ In lieu of highflown language about the historical significance of nuclear power, the Commissioners attributed the need for a policy statement to budgetary expediencies and to pressure from the Joint Committee. The Commission found “the attainment of economically competitive nuclear power to be a goal of national importance.” It would be a major setback for the nation if its leadership in nuclear power development should pass to other countries. The

Commission would help industry by continuing to support research and development and by promoting the construction of experimental reactors. The Commission suggested to Eisenhower several forms of assistance. The Commission proposed to finance construction of an experimental power reactor using sodium as a coolant and graphite as a moderator. The sodium-graphite reactor was expected to generate 7,500 kilowatts of electricity. Private industry would then be invited to build a full-scale reactor (100,000—200,000 kilowatts) with private funds on the condition that the

THE EISENHOWER IMPRINT

Commission would protect the owners against excessive losses. Finally, the Commission would offer private industry technical assistance from the national laboratories in building a full-scale power-breeder reactor. The price tag was identical to the Davidson-Hafstad proposal: $10 million per year over ten years. The suggestions did not receive a warm reception from the National Security Council when Dean presented them a week later. Eisenhower did not want to approach Congress until the Executive Branch had agreed on

Administration policy. Furthermore, after his discussions with Charles Thomas of Monsanto, Eisenhower doubted that industry would agree to participate without a heavy government subsidy. In Kisenhower’s estimation the subsidy might go as high as $100 million; Dodge guessed it might be even higher. Secretary Wilson thought the Commission was moving too fast and should wait at least six months before making a commitment on

24 subsidies. Secretary Humphrey went even further and urged construction of a pilot plant before any subsidies were considered. Dean shrewdly suggested that it would be unwise to limit the plan to one government-built

pilot plant. He thought nuclear power development would come more quickly with industrial participation, but that would require changes in the Atomic Energy Act. Jumping on this point, Eisenhower declared that modification of the act should come first; in the meantime, he would consider only a small subsidy. In the end, the council agreed to refer the report to

its group of outside consultants and hold funds for the sodium-graphite reactor to the $3 million included in the budget. '®

During the last three weeks in March 1953, Dean had numerous opportunities to assess the Commission’s position on nuclear power. There were several discussions of a preamble to the policy statement that would help the consultants from the National Security Council to put the statement in proper context. Most Commissioners, including Dean, met with the consultants to brief them on the fundamentals of nuclear technology. Dean took pains to see that Strauss had all the information he needed for his report on the Commission’s budget, not only because Strauss represented the President but also because Dean had heard from the National Security Council staff that Strauss might be his successor. !? Dean again encountered stiff resistance to his proposed budget cuts when the National Security Council reconsidered them on March 31. He failed to restore earlier reductions in funds for the sodium-graphite reactor,

but Eisenhower reaffirmed his desire to amend the act in order to make industrial participation easier. Strauss had investigated various possibilities for wringing another $200 million out of the Commission’s budget, but

he admitted that none of these seemed prudent. Secretary Humphrey expressed his reluctance to abandon any hopes of cutting the expansion program. What could the council do? Then Charles Thomas, one of the consultants, came up with an idea: why not eliminate the project for building

THE EISENHOWER IMPRINT

nuclear propulsion plants for aircraft and for the aircraft carrier? This action would save $254 million in the first two years. Eisenhower thought the idea had merit; these projects could be delayed until the success of the first nuclear submarine had been determined. The President was not ready to make a final decision, but no one had given him any solid reasons why these projects should be continued.”

NUCLEAR POWER AND PRIVATE ENTERPRISE

When the March 31 decision of the National Security Council filtered back to the Commission and the Department of Defense, the instinctive reaction in the bureaucracy was to gird up for a battle of the budget, but some astute observers saw a more fundamental issue at stake. Commissioner Murray

wrote Dean that he considered the cuts in the reactor budget “merely a 295 symptom” of the differing views of the Commission and the council. The Commission had proposed government development of nuclear power with private assistance; the National Security Council had reversed these roles by calling for private development with government assistance. Murray was convinced from two years of experience in consulting with industry on nuclear power projects that development would be much too slow to maintain American leadership in nuclear technology if the nation relied upon anticipated private profits for incentive. “Although I have consistently urged private construction and operation of nuclear power plants, | am convinced that successful and rapid development demands retention of Government leadership at this time.” ?!

Because almost every issue discussed by the National Security Council was considered top secret, few people in the atomic energy establishment besides the Commissioners themselves could appreciate the significance of the March 31 action. Not even the Commissioners were privy to the warning of the seven consultants who had submitted to the council a strongly worded, almost alarming analysis of the government’s ability to

support national security programs. The consultants expressed “grave doubt that our national substance will stand the strain of its protracted diffusion over the world in the form principally of nonproductive munitions of war.” The costs of rearmament during the Korean conflict had been excessive, and the consultants “deplored the profligate use of scientific and engineering manpower in military programs.”

At the same time, the consultants recognized a growing need to strengthen American defenses. This need could be met, not by pouring resources into military projects in a conventional way but by restructuring military preparedness. The consultants advocated more stress on production capacity as a military reserve than on stockpiling military hardware. Defense should depend more heavily on “more powerful nuclear weapons

THE EISENHOWER IMPRINT

and increasingly effective means of delivery.” The consultants also recommended more attention to tactical nuclear weapons and their deployment to NATO forces. Through careful planning and stern measures of economy it would be possible to achieve adequate material security with a balanced budget in 1954.*? Eisenhower and his advisers did not take such an extreme position

on the need for economy, but the consultants had some influence. “The survival of the free world,” in the National Security Council’s opinion, de-

pended upon “a sound, strong economy” in the United States and that rested in turn on balancing the budget, if not in 1954 or 1955, then as soon thereafter as possible. Within these financial limitations the United States would “continue to assist in building up the strength of the free world” and would seek “to contain Soviet expansion and to deter Soviet power from aggressive war.” The Commission could contribute both to increased security

26 and to the balanced budget by effecting the expenditure reduction suggested by Strauss and Thomas and by advancing the development of nuclear power “primarily by private, not government, financing.” In addition to reducing

government spending, private financing would “tap the great scientific laboratories of private enterprise,” stimulate competition between government and private laboratories, automatically disperse nuclear production plants, and “create new industries, new employment, and new sources of taxes.” ??

Implicit in this argument for industrial development of nuclear power was a corollary that did not appear in government memorandums: if industry lost the initiative in developing this energy source of the future, then the last hope for keeping electrical energy generation in private hands would go down the drain. Late in winter 1953 few politicians or government officials were anxious to begin a new round in the old battle between public and private power interests, a struggle going back to the establishment of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in 1933 and the epic victory of the New Deal over the power trust, a triumph embodied in the Public Utility

Holding Company Act of 1935. Harry S. Truman, who as a freshman senator had voted for the act, kept the issue alive during his presidency by denouncing “the million-dollar propaganda campaigns” of the private

power lobby. One trade magazine for the electric utilities industry responded by calling Truman’s talk of cheap public power a political “lollipop” in the presidential campaign of 1952; that publication welcomed E1isenhower’s victory as a blow to the “planned drive toward socialization” of the industry. ”*

Most enthusiasm for nuclear power in spring 1953 arose from sincere convictions, as Newsweek put it, that “atomic power is at the finger tips of this generation.” The Joint Committee’s Atomic Power and Private Enterprise demonstrated clearly the broad base of optimism about nuclear power within American industry. The addition of a fifth industrial study

THE EISENHOWER IMPRINT

group to the Commission’s cooperative nuclear power program in April 1953 suggested a growing and even impatient interest, even if the Commissioners and the staff privately discounted the significance of such arrangements. Four days later former Commissioner T. Keith Glennan, who for more than a year had spurred industry to enter the nuclear field, announced the incorporation of the Atomic Industrial Forum, an organization of businessmen, engineers, scientists, and educators interested in the industrial development and application of atomic energy. Based in New York, the forum was to serve as both a clearinghouse for information and a stimulant to industrial participation. The board of directors included the presidents or atomic energy executives of thirteen large corporations and institutions of higher education. Later that same week Walker L. Cisler, president of the Detroit Edison Company, and eight other executives representing the Dow Chemical—Detroit Edison study group, met with the Commissioners to

offer amendments to the Atomic Energy Act that would enable private in- 27 dustry to invest in nuclear projects. The following week Congressman James Ek. Van Zandt, a Republican from Pennsylvania and member of the Joint Committee, introduced in the House of Representatives a bill authorizing private industry to own or hold nuclear fuel on long-term lease. ?° Imbedded in this mass enthusiasm, however, were some indications that nuclear power could become a pawn in the endless struggle between public and private power interests. The same trade magazine that had welcomed Eisenhower’s election as a boost to the defenders of private utility companies looked upon strong industry initiative in nuclear power development as a way of getting the government out of the power business. Van Zandt announced in the Congressional Record that one purpose of his bill was “to prevent an atomic TVA by prohibiting the Atomic Energy Commission from selling power except as produced in conjunction with manufacture of weapons materials.” Public power advocates voiced their own anxieties in letters to the Commission. The American Public Power Association opposed any change in the Atomic Energy Act until steps could be taken “to prevent any monopolistic advantage accruing to any private person or corporations.” The association advocated Commission development of pilot plants and participation by publicly owned electric utilities in development contracts. Using even stronger language, the Congress of Industrial Organizations supported the proposition that “the Atomic Energy Act should be strengthened by requiring that the actual operation of all facilities can be handled by the government itself and not by large monopolistic corporations

like DuPont and Monsanto.” Within the Eisenhower Administration the public-versus-private power issue was not stated in such stark terms, but it was evident that important elements within the Administration were determined to see that nuclear power was developed as a private enterprise. Addressing the National Security Council on April 22, 1953, Roger M. Kyes, Deputy Secre-

THE EISENHOWER IMPRINT

tary of Defense, argued for canceling altogether, rather than merely postponing development of, the nuclear bomber and the nuclear aircraft carrier. Kyes justified his proposal as an economic measure, but Dean immediately recognized it as a threat to the Commission’s reactor development effort. He reminded the council that, by eliminating the sodium-graphite reactor and now the aircraft and carrier reactors, the Commission would no longer have a single nuclear power experiment. Because the Department of Defense had rescinded its requirements for the two military reactor projects, the Commission could no longer justify them in terms of national security. But Dean suggested that portions of the projects helpful to producing an economical power reactor might be continued. Eisenhower said he would be happy to consider such a recommendation from the Commission. ?’ Dean’s ploy may have seemed like a slender reed to Kyes and others at the meeting, but Dean was acting on more than a hunch. A week earlier

28 Murray had proposed that it might be possible to transform the carrier project into a central station power reactor. The carrier reactor itself was to be

a land-based prototype capable of generating a substantial amount of power. The project had been set up largely at Murray’s insistence in Apmil 1952. Because Westinghouse had been working on the reactor under the close scrutiny of Captain Hyman G. Rickover and his naval reactors branch for more than a year, the Commission could hope to move ahead quickly on a scaled-down version of the plant after some naval features had been eliminated.”®

Rickover had occasion to explore Kyes’s reasons for opposition to the carrier project in a lively discussion at the Pentagon on April 30. The feisty naval officer, who never hesitated to speak his mind in defending the naval reactors program, found Kyes philosophically opposed to any project that remotely threatened to give the federal government a place in nuclear power development. Kyes, a young General Motors executive whom Wilson had brought to the Pentagon from Detroit, was convinced that American industry was ready to invest in nuclear power and that industry could complete a power reactor much more quickly than Rickover could build the carrier prototype. There was no possibility, Kyes said, of reopening the decisions of the National Security Council.”° Although the carrier reactor was dead, the Commission saw a real possibility of converting it into a nuclear power project. While Dean was out of town, Murray and Smyth took up the cause. In a firm letter to the President on April 29, Smyth expressed the heart of the argument for the civilian power project. The Commission recognized the importance of industrial participation, but all the Commissioners were convinced that “even after statutory obstacles are removed, private industry will not assume a major part of the expensive, long-term development work that must precede the attainment of civilian power.” Two days later Smyth and Murray discussed with Strauss how best to approach the President in a meeting Strauss

THE EISENHOWER IMPRINT

had arranged for May 4. When Smyth and Murray entered the Oval Office that day, they found that Strauss had laid the groundwork for a favorable reception. The President seemed impressed with Murray’s argument that the new version of the carrier reactor would assure the United States the world’s first large-scale nuclear power plant at a cost of $50 to $60 million less than the estimate for the carrier reactor. Eisenhower told the two Commissioners that the Department of Defense had already proposed a new

version of the aircraft propulsion reactor, keeping that project alive at a lower cost. *°

With the President’s support Smyth had no trouble selling the new reactor project to the National Security Council on May 6, 1953. In addition to approving a new and scaled-down approach to the aircraft reactor, the council agreed to use Westinghouse’s work on a pressurized-water reactor for the carrier in a new central station nuclear power plant; the total

cost would be $100 million, “unless private financing should become avail- 29 able before completion.” That same afternoon Murray turned in a masterful

performance before the Joint Committee in making clear why private financing was not likely. Reading from letters he had received from Cisler and others, Murray declared that private industry had no money available for power reactor development. Unless the government stepped in with something like the new pressurized-water reactor, the nation would lose as much as ten years in attaining commercial nuclear power.*! This kind of argument was certain to win the support of committee members who questioned either the wisdom or feasibility of turning nuclear power development over to private industry. By dropping casual references to National Security Council documents Murray was able without violating executive privilege to signal the committee that the council had come to some decision on a nuclear power policy; but by not saying so specifically, Murray left to the committee the option of requesting once again the briefing that Dean and the Commissioners had so long postponed. The committee was quick to invite the Commission to testify on May 26 and to provide further information on the National Security Council’s action.”

Dean was sharp enough to see great possibilities in the situation. The White House could not very well object to the Commissioners’ present-

ing the nuclear power statement that the National Security Council had approved on April 22. Nor would the President be displeased if the Commission offered draft legislation amending the act to permit greater participation by industry; the President himself had given that project top priority. But Dean was also careful not to mention to the White House staff anything about the Commission’s own power statement. Thus, when Dean appeared before the Joint Committee on May 26, he was free to read the entire Com-

mission statement into the record. When the time came to present the policy statement adopted by the National Security Council, however, Dean

THE EISENHOWER IMPRINT

carefully omitted the references to the Administration’s preference for “private, not government, financing.” He thereby left the impression that the Commission and the council were essentially in agreement; the main dif-

ference was how much load the government would have to carry. Dean covered himself by later submitting the full text of the National Security Council statement for the record.**

Likewise, Dean took advantage of the opportunity to present the Commission's version of new legislation on industrial participation before the Bureau of the Budget and the Administration were able to revise it. He admitted that the proposal was no more than a draft, but he hoped to give the committee a starting place. The Commission favored a separate act, not a series of amendments to the Atomic Energy Act. Industry, under Commission license, could own power reactors, processing facilities, and fissionable materials used or produced in such operations. The Commission

30 would regulate the safety and security aspects of licensed activities and could make long-term commitments for the sale or lease of nuclear materials to licensees. The Commission could but would not be required to purchase fissionable and by-product materials produced by licensees.** Dean realized that he was cutting corners in not being completely candid with either the White House or the Joint Committee, but he saw no other way out of a difficult situation.*» He rightly concluded that Wilson and Kyes, among others who had recently taken positions in government,

did not fully appreciate the subtleties of policy formulation, especially given the tendency of new government officials to attempt sweeping reforms

with simplistic measures. Dean also knew that he had avoided a head-on collision between the new Administration and the Joint Committee, a result he could rationalize as a potentially creative act. Much of Dean’s success

as chairman had resulted from his pragmatic view of events and his tendency to avoid theoretical arguments. But there was an inherent danger in Dean’s attempt to finesse the philosophical differences over the government’s role in developing nuclear power. Postponing the debate might mean that the issue would never be raised in a constructive context. Dean himself would be leaving the Commission and the government in a few weeks, and he had assurances that his successor, probably Strauss, would pursue the course he had so adroitly established.

THE NEW CHAIRMAN

Despite the rumors that Strauss would succeed him as chairman, Dean had

received no official notice from the White House as late as June | and decided to raise the question in a formal letter to the President. The next day Eisenhower confirmed the rumors. Because Strauss had not yet severed

THE EISENHOWER IMPRINT

all his business connections in New York, the appointment was not to be announced for several weeks. Dean was pleased with the choice not only because he thought Strauss well qualified for the position but also because his successor’s knowledge of the atomic energy program would make the transition easier than it might have been.*° Not until June 19 did Strauss inform the President that he was pre-

pared for an announcement of the nomination “if you continue so disposed.” By the time the news broke on June 24, Strauss had drafted a brief statement for the press. He noted that he had never intended to return to public life after his resignation from the Commission in 1950, but he could not fail to respond to a call from the President. He recalled his interest over two decades in the therapeutic uses of nuclear energy and expressed the hope that his return to the Commission would “coincide also with an era of vigorous progress in the benign uses of this great natural foree—that is to say, for industrial power, for healing, and for widespread research.” *’ 3] The press and members of Congress applauded Strauss’s nomination without exception. Citing Strauss’s interest in nuclear science, his previous

service on the Commission, his promotion of the detection system that provided evidence of the first Soviet nuclear detonation, and his fight for the thermonuclear weapon, many editorial writers and columnists found Strauss “uniquely qualified,” a “wise choice,” “the right man for the job.” General Groves called the appointment “the best thing that could have happened for the country.” Strauss, the general said, “knows the subject and he’s a 100 percent American.” Only the newspapers in the nation’s capital questioned Strauss’s penchant for security, “a kind of intellectual isolationism” that would suggest his opposition to broadening access to nuclear technology. The Senate section of the Joint Committee, meeting three days later, voted unanimously to recommend Strauss’s confirmation without asking him a single question. *®

Strauss received a warm welcome in his first appearance before the Joint Committee on July 20, 1953. He took advantage of the occasion to

introduce Joseph Campbell, who just four days earlier had been nominated as the fifth member of the Commission. A New York accounting executive, Campbell had served as treasurer of Columbia University during Kisenhower’s presidency there. Strauss had urged the President to appoint Campbell, whom Strauss admired for his “meticulous judgment” and “personal loyalty.” *

Just as Dean had opened the series of fourteen hearings on atomic power development and private enterprise on June 24, Strauss closed them by appearing as the last witness. Claiming that he had not been on the job long enough to have fixed opinions on the subject, Strauss did little more than read the Commission’s policy statement into the record. He foresaw difficulties in formulating a new patent policy that would give industry a larger

THE EISENHOWER IMPRINT

role in developing atomic energy than was possible under the existing provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, but he hoped to be able to present proposed amendments before the end of 1953.” The hearings demonstrated widespread concurrence in the Commission’s evaluation of the status of nuclear power. Despite the Eisenhower Administration’s initial hopes for early production of nuclear power by private industry, it was clear from the hearings that industry was not yet prepared to assume the full cost and that Commission support of research and development and its regulation of nuclear activities would have to continue indefinitely.

If the Administration accepted this fact in the abstract, it was not yet prepared to take any positive action on a government reactor project. Only the direct intercession of Congressman Cole, the new chairman of the Joint Committee, provided the House appropriations committee with the 32 information it needed to add $12 million to the Commission’s 1954 budget for the project. Cole, a Republican lawyer from upstate New York, had proven himself a conscientious and effective member of the Joint Committee since 1949. He seemed determined to demonstrate that a member of the House of Representatives could be as dynamic and influential in advancing the cause of atomic energy as his famous predecessor, Brien McMahon, had been.*! For the immediate future the Commission’s principal reactor project would be the pressurized-water reactor, the civilian version of the prototype

propulsion system for an aircraft carrier. After a heated debate within the Commission’s staff during July, Rickover and his naval reactors branch were given full responsibility. Initially Strauss had questioned whether the reactor would gain public acceptance as a civilian effort if Rickover’s group were in charge, but Rickover and Murray had convinced the new chairman that the project was truly civilian. Some members of the reactor development staff and the general advisory committee argued that the proposed reactor was neither large enough nor novel enough in design to offer a promising demonstration of nuclear power. Some electric utility executives attempted to keep the new venture out of Rickover’s control on the grounds that Rickover would give industry little real chance to participate. Murray, however, resolutely countered these arguments and induced the Commission to settle the issue in Rickover’s favor. Although the Commission did not announce the decision until October, Rickover’s group and the Westinghouse team at the Bettis laboratory near Pittsburgh were already at work on the new project.” In the July hearing before the Joint Committee, Strauss had been able to avoid specific commitments to a plan for developing nuclear power, but the Congressional concession was only temporary. The bright promise of the nuclear age had swept over Republicans and Democrats alike in the Congress. If Strauss intended to gain the initiative, he would have to move

THE EISENHOWER IMPRINT

quickly before Congress reconvened in January. Less obvious to the public but more telling to Strauss than the Congressional pressure was the President’s determination to find some redeeming value in nuclear technology. Nuclear power for civilian purposes seemed an obvious answer, but only under certain conditions. The Administration’s economic and budgetary policies would not condone large federal expenditures for that purpose. Rather, Eisenhower looked to Strauss and the Commission to break the government monopoly by proposing amendments to the Atomic Energy Act so that private industry could take the lead. The new President had left his

imprint on Commission policy; it was Strauss’s task to see to it that his imprint was observed.

33 ,

CHAPTER 3

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

In his inaugural address on January 20, 1953, President Eisenhower said nothing explicit about atomic energy, but there were unmistakable overtones in his careful phrases. He asked the nation:

Are we nearing the light—a day of freedom and of peace for all mankind? Or are the shadows of another night closing in upon us? . . . This trial comes at a moment when man’s power to achieve

good or to inflict evil surpasses the brightest hopes and sharpest fears of all ages. . . . Science seems ready to confer upon us, as its final gift, the power to erase human life from this planet. ' The recent test of Mike at Enewetak must have been on Eisenhower’s mind as he read these words.

THE THERMONUCLEAR QUESTION

Eisenhower's veiled reference to the hydrogen bomb showed that he recognized the significance of Mike, but the new President could not have suspected that on the very next day he would be faced with a profound disagreement among leading nuclear scientists, a controversy that raised serious questions about the adequacy of the Commission’s thermonuclear program. The day after the inauguration Representative Carl T. Durham, acting chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, told the President that the Joint Committee staff had compiled a massive chronology purporting to document the argument that the Commission had been less than enthusiastic in its efforts to develop a hydrogen bomb. Eisenhower expressed interest and a few days later asked Durham for a copy of the study.’

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

The disagreement had its origins deep within the atomic energy establishment, in life-and-death issues that aroused passions and emotions. Like most things related to the hydrogen bomb, however, the debate over the scope and pace of the thermonuclear program was known to relatively few people, even among those who worked behind the security barrier that sealed off the world of atomic energy from the rest of American life. Oldtimers in atomic energy development like Edward Teller could trace the dispute back to the early 1940s. Teller was an extraordinary theoretical physicist whose creative imagination had many times proven invaluable in developing ideas for nuclear weapons. He had long been intrigued with the idea of a bomb that would draw upon the enormous amounts of thermonuclear energy that powered the stars. But Teller was also a passionate individualist driven by strong emotions and original conceptions that raced far beyond the realm of existing reality. After the announcement of the first

Soviet nuclear weapon test in September 1949, Teller had been a leader in 30 the successful attempt to convince President Truman that the United States

should answer the Soviet challenge by accelerating the work at the Los Alamos weapon laboratory on a hydrogen bomb.* Despite aggressive efforts at Los Alamos, Teller was not convinced that either Los Alamos or the Commission was doing enough to assure the

earliest possible achievement of a thermonuclear weapon. Teller’s contribution had been crucial in supplying the design principle that would make the Enewetak test possible, but he continued his criticisms of Los Alamos and the Commission, even to the point of leaving Los Alamos and openly advocating early in 1952 the establishment of a new laboratory for thermonuclear research.* In this new venture Teller drew upon old allies in the thermonuclear dispute; Senator Brien McMahon, chairman of the powerful Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, and William L. Borden, the committee’s executive director. McMahon and Borden, like Teller, were men of passionate beliefs who lived in daily fear of the Soviet menace. McMahon, with his energetic leadership and the assistance of Borden’s keen intellect, had dominated the Joint Committee since 1949, Their constant concern was whether the Commission was moving fast enough in developing and producing weapons.

Perhaps with Teller’s prodding, perhaps on their own initiative, McMahon and Borden launched two further inquiries into the adequacy of nuclear weapon development in February 1952. In the first hearing, with the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, McMahon raised the question that Klaus Fuchs, the German-born British scientist who had been convicted of Soviet espionage in 1950, had acquired during his stay at Los Alamos some essential principles of the thermonuclear weapon. Convinced that American efforts had been less than expeditious, McMahon feared that the Russians might already be ahead of the United States in the thermonuclear field.> In a second hearing two weeks later Borden presented the

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

Commissioners with an alarming interpretation of recent intelligence reports about the nature of the third Soviet test, information that suggested a dangerous underestimation of Soviet capabilities in producing both fissionable and thermonuclear materials by isotope separation. °® In both instances the attempts by McMahon and Borden to acceler-

ate weapon development failed. In the first, the Department of Defense found no grounds for concluding that the Commission’s efforts were inadequate.’ In the second, Commissioner Smyth displayed his command of pro-

duction and weapon technology by convincingly discounting the significance of the reports about the Soviet test. A few weeks later, however, in March 1952, the same stories about Fuchs and the recent Soviet test stirred up enough concern in the new Deputy Secretary of Defense William C. Foster to result in a meeting of the National Security Council’s special committee on atomic energy. After Teller had briefed the committee on the

36 history of weapon development, Dean with considerable difficulty convinced the Secretaries of Defense and State that there was nothing new or particularly significant in Teller’s fears.®

Although Dean succeeded in keeping the thermonuclear question out of the National Security Council, he could not contain Teller within the atomic energy establishment. The issue of whether to create a second laboratory inevitably embroiled the Commission’s general advisory committee and its chairman, J. Robert Oppenheimer. A man of exceptional ability as a physicist, administrator, and leader, Oppenheimer had built and directed the Los Alamos laboratory during World War II, had sparked much of the United States’ effort to establish international control of atomic energy after the war, and, as chairman of the Commission’s principal advisory committee since 1947, perhaps more than any other individual had influenced the Commission’s course in its formative years. Oppenheimer also served on important committees in other executive departments. Like most members of the general advisory committee, Oppenheimer was not convinced that a secorid laboratory would necessarily enhance weapon development.? Indirectly Oppenheimer criticized Teller for promoting the second laboratory for political rather than technical reasons. The committee members also complained among themselves that they were being blamed for deficiencies at Los Alamos that they had tried to correct much earlier.

One scientist with whom the committee consulted on the second laboratory was Hans A. Bethe, the distinguished theoretical physicist from Cornell University who had long been associated with weapon development

at Los Alamos. Bethe was disturbed by what he heard at the committee meeting, particularly by Dean’s reports of growing dissatisfaction within the Defense Department over the thermonuclear project. He decided to write the Secretary of the Air Force a letter setting the record straight. His summary of thermonuclear development since 1946 was designed to show that Fuchs was not exposed to vital information about design of the hydrogen

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

bomb and that Teller’s conception in April 1951 was essential to the Ameri-

can success. Teller, when he read Bethe’s summary, came to exactly the opposite conclusion. '°

Borden’s reaction to Bethe’s analysis and Teller’s critique was one of frustration and alarm. In Borden’s opinion the Bethe analysis was nothing but a “white wash,” perhaps even the result of a conspiracy by Oppenheimer and the Commission to hide the inadequacy of the thermonuclear program.!'' There was no consolation for Borden in the fact that Oppenheimer had retired from the general advisory committee on June 30, 1952; Oppenheimer still had ample means of exerting what Borden considered a negative influence on military developments. Borden had also been disheartened by McMahon’s death a few weeks after Oppenheimer’s retirement. With McMahon’s strong voice silenced, Borden felt that he alone would have to shoulder the leadership for awakening the nation to the lag-

ging development of nuclear weapons, especially the hydrogen bomb. 37 Borden decided first to set the record straight by compiling a “history” or “chronology.” For this task he recruited John T. Walker, like himself a Yale law graduate, who would serve also as the Joint Committee’s counsel. From the committee’s voluminous files Walker compiled a compendium of excerpts from correspondence, reports, and hearing transcripts that seemed to demonstrate the failure of the Commission, the general advisory committee, defense officials, and military officers to understand the overwhelming importance of thermonuclear weapons. The excerpts were arranged in chronological order with a minimum of editorializing; but, like a lawyers summary of evidence, the chronology moved inexorably to its intended conclusion. The nature of Walker’s assignment made it impossible for him to turn to the Commission staff or to Los Alamos for technical assistance. Instead, he relied on John A. Wheeler, the theoretical physicist who directed Project Matterhorn as a part of the Commission’s thermonuclear effort at Princeton University. Wheeler not only had expert knowledge of the

subject but also as a Commission consultant was cleared for access to highly classified information. He had the further advantage of being close to Teller’s views, thus generally sympathetic with Borden’s purpose. In addition to reviewing the chronology, Wheeler also agreed to comment upon a reexamination of the Fuchs question that Walker had prepared as part of

his study.

THE WHEELER INCIDENT

By New Year’s Day, 1953, the chronology was in final form, presumably incorporating Wheeler’s latest suggestions,'? but Walker was still deeply immersed in the Fuchs question. Walker, with Borden’s encouragement,

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

attempted to outline in detail how Fuchs might have picked up the germ of

the thermonuclear principle as early as 1946. During the first week in January Walker mailed Wheeler his analysis of the evidence. The press of business did not give Wheeler time to read the Walker document, and he finally took it with him on a trip to Washington, when he would have an opportunity to discuss it with Walker. Thus the stage was set for the calamity that threw the thermonuclear debate into the lap of President Eisenhower. Although Wheeler took special precautions to keep this and other highly classified documents in his possession during his overnight train ride to Washington, the following morning he inadvertently misplaced the envelope containing the documents. He was able to retrieve the envelope, but the Walker document was missing. After a frantic search Wheeler reported the loss to the Joint Committee. Borden personally called railroad and Pullman officials to impound

38 the sleeping car and all laundry and trash from the train. Not until sometime before noon did Borden call the FBI. An exhaustive search, including partial dismantling of the Pullman car, failed to locate the document.

The loss seemed certain to hold awesome consequences for both Wheeler and Borden. In the first place, the document contained a succinct summary of the American thermonuclear program, including the design and operating principles of the Mike device, important code names, and a summary of the Bethe-Teller “debate.” '* It was hard to imagine how anyone could have selected a more sensitive document of so few pages concerning the hydrogen bomb. Second, a document of this sensitivity should have been handled as top secret material, which, according to Commission se-

curity regulations, was to be transported only by an armed courier in a private compartment. Third, Wheeler, while serving under a Commission contract and traveling on Commission funds, had lost the document in the process of compiling material that would reflect unfavorably on the Commission’s management of the project. Whether by design or circumstance, the loss of the Walker document did not immediately come to the attention of the Commission. Not until January 13, almost a week after the incident, did John A. Waters, the Commission’s director of security, receive a routine letter from J. Edgar

Hoover, director of the FBI, informing the Commission that Wheeler had lost a “confidential document . . . summarizing the Atomic Energy Program.” !5

Because Hoover’s letter did not suggest the true significance of the

lost document, Waters handled it as a routine matter.!° Nine days later, when Waters learned that the FBI had not yet obtained a copy of the lost document from the Joint Committee, he became concerned and notified the Commission’s general manager, Marion W. Boyer. After several discussions with Borden, Waters finally arranged to see a copy of the Walker report on February 4, but even then Borden would not permit the Commission to have

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

a copy. Waters and a Commission classification officer who saw the document were aghast at its contents and immediately informed the Commissioners. Dean personally called the FBI to alert the agency to the extreme

sensitivity of the lost information, and Commissioner Murray briefed Hoover on the serious nature of the loss. Not until that day did Borden give the Commission a copy of the Walker document.

Borden had every reason to try to avoid confrontation over the Wheeler debacle. At last realizing the full implications of the case, Hoover

decided to report the loss to the White House. Eisenhower, appalled by such an incredible security lapse in the waning days of the Truman Administration, seized an opportunity before a scheduled meeting of the Commissioners with the National Security Council to demand an explanation of the incident. Lined up like five school boys before the master’s desk, Smyth later recalled, the Commissioners meekly witnessed an extraordinary dis-

play of presidential anger. Murray had never in his life seen anyone more 39 agitated. In the Army, Eisenhower observed, a security offender was dealt with swiftly and surely. At first Eisenhower was convinced it was an “inside job,” purposely designed to get the papers into Russian hands.'’ Dean attempted to explain the complexities of the case: that the lost paper was not a Commission document, that Wheeler was no ordinary physicist, and that the Joint Committee was deeply implicated in the affair. Why was it necessary for the Joint Committee to have such sensitive materials in the first place? Eisenhower’s inquiry unwittingly echoed the question some Commissioners had been asking themselves. Dean patiently explained that under the terms of the Atomic Energy Act the Commission was required to keep the committee “fully and currently informed.” !® Eisenhower thought this provision was a mistake and expressed doubts about the committee’s leadership. Dean explained that since McMahon’s death the preceding summer the committee had been effectively without a chair-

man. Durham, the ranking Democrat on the committee, had taken McMahon’s place; but now that the Republicans controlled the Congress, it was not clear who would be chairman. Until Durham had taken over the chairmanship, the committee had always elected a senator as chairman, but now there was a bitter dispute within the committee over whether Senator Bourke B. Hickenlooper of lowa or Congressman W. Sterling Cole of New York would get the post. Dean also mentioned to the President that neither he nor any of his fellow Commissioners had seen a copy of the Walker paper; he was not even certain that the Joint Committee staff had informed all committee members about the loss. The President, clearly shocked by the affair and not satisfied with Dean’s reply, announced that he would call Hickenlooper and Cole to his office the following morning and demand that they decide at once the question of the chairmanship. He was also going to recommend reorganizing staff functions to prevent a similar loss in the future. Still unnerved by the

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

incident two days later, Eisenhower discussed the problem with the National Security Council on February 18.'° He understood that the technical staff of the committee was to be abolished when the new chairman was selected, but this action would not lessen the appalling danger created by the loss of the Walker paper. Several council members expressed their opinions that the incident could not be attributed to carelessness but to nothing less than treason and espionage. Vice-President Richard M. Nixon suggested a complete FBI investigation of every member of the committee staff, and there was some discussion about whether Hoover and the FBI could take custody of the committee’s classified files. The strong reactions of Eisenhower and the National Security Coun-

cil may have been stimulated by the growing pressure of the Rosenberg case. When Wheeler had made his ill-fated trip to Washington on the night of January 6, many Rosenberg sympathizers were coming to the nation’s

40 capital to demonstrate at the White House for presidential clemency for Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, the convicted atomic spies whose execution had been stayed until the President could act. On February 11, just a week before Eisenhower learned of the loss of the Walker document, the President had denied clemency on the grounds that the Rosenberg’s betrayal of the nation’s atomic secrets to Russia “could well result in the deaths of many, many thousands of innocent citizens.” 7° In the face of this decision, how could Eisenhower have viewed the

loss of the Walker document with less concern? After all, the Rosenbergs had presumably passed on unevaluated information about the early designs of atomic weapons; the Walker paper was a detailed and authentic description of the operating principles of the hydrogen bomb. There was, however, a certain irony in the outcome of the Wheeler affair: Wheeler, who admitted his carelessness, suffered no public embarrassment; moreover, no one who really knew him or anything about the incident ever questioned his loyalty or integrity. In a most serious predicament, which might have resulted in the loss of Wheeler’s security clearance, the Commission’s chairman had defended Wheeler before the President as a scientist of exceptional abilities, a man so gifted that the nation could not afford to lose his services. Wheeler received an oral and written reprimand from Dean, but the incident was completely concealed behind the security barriers. Borden, on the other hand, stood to lose most of the influence he had come to wield over national policy on nuclear weapons. Before McMahon’s death Borden had been one of the most powerful and effective spokesmen for nuclear weapons in the atomic energy establishment, but he now realized that his days with the Joint Committee were numbered. Even before the Republican victory in the November elections Borden had consulted Strauss and others about a position in private industry. The Wheeler incident now made the inevitable more imminent. Dean seized the opportunity afforded by Wheeler’s lapse to break Borden’s grip on the committee.

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

By bringing the incident to the attention of the President and some committee members before Borden reported it, Dean undermined confidence in Borden in places that counted most. In spring 1953 Borden began in earnest to wind up his affairs on the Hill. If Borden had any regret over leaving his committee post, it was that

he might not have time to complete his campaign for the thermonuclear weapon. The planning and hard work of the preceding three years had culminated in the thermonuclear chronology, which he considered a massive indictment of the Commission’s efforts. Walker had worked day and night to complete the study before he left the Joint Committee staff in early

1953. No doubt Borden had paved the way for Congressman Durham to raise the thermonuclear issue with Eisenhower the day after the inauguration. The new president had acknowledged receipt of the chronology on February 14, 1953,?! but could hardly have grasped the significance of the

bulky and somewhat turgid document before he heard the alarming news of 4] the Walker paper. The irony was that Borden, who had tried with all his considerable powers to speed the building of a thermonuclear arsenal, had through the Wheeler incident destroyed his own effectiveness in advancing that cause.

THE SHADOW OF THE BOMB

Since Roy Snapp’s secret visit to Augusta in November 1952, Eisenhower had been struggling with the staggering implications of a weapon that could destroy not only an entire city but perhaps civilization itself. Dean and his

colleagues had explained the hydrogen bomb in a technical sense, as a piece of hardware that could be produced if sufficient materials were available. They had outlined the Commission’s plans for testing components of a deliverable thermonuclear weapon at the Nevada Proving Grounds during the spring and achieving an emergency capability after a full-scale test in the Pacific early in 1954. The President still had faith in the Commission’s technical competence in these matters, despite the indictment set forth in the Joint Committee chronology. From his very first exposure to the subject, however, Eisenhower saw the hydrogen bomb as much more than a matter of weapon technology. He focused immediately on the enormous power of the new weapon, the falling ratio of cost to destructive capability, and the desperate problems of control in a hostile world. However competent the atomic energy establishment might be, the Commissioners did not speak to these larger considerations; at least they had not (and perhaps could not) in the limited context of a presidential briefing. Outside the Commission virtually no one had enough facts to discuss the situation knowledgeably. A rare opportunity to wrestle with some larger issues presented by

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

the hydrogen bomb came in February 1953 when the President received a report on “Armaments and American Policy” prepared by a group of State Department consultants.”? The report had originated in a request from Secretary of State Dean G. Acheson in April 1952 that a group of consultants take a fresh look at the strategy that the United States was using in the increasingly meaningless sessions of the United Nations Disarmament Commission. Because Acheson was thinking of a wide-ranging, original study similar to that prepared by the Acheson-Lilienthal group in 1946, he appointed two members of that group to the disarmament panel: Oppenheimer and Vannevar Bush, the eminent electrical engineer and administrator who had had a key role in formulating government policy on science and atomic energy for more than a decade. The other members of the panel were John S. Dickey and Joseph E. Johnson, both former State Department officials who were now prominent in academic circles, and Allen W.

42 Dulles, deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency. McGeorge Bundy, then on the Harvard faculty, served as secretary and Oppenheimer as chairman. The Oppenheimer disarmament panel did not take a narrow view of its assignment but rather chose “to consider the problem of arms limitation in the context of a general study of the political meaning of modern weapons in the present deeply divided world.” In this broader context the panel soon became convinced that the proper center of study was not arms regulation itself but the larger range of problems that came under the general heading of armaments and American policy. Reviewing the history of arms control since the time of the Acheson-Lilienthal study, the panel saw no real sign of likely agreement, largely because of the intransigent and deceitful attitude of the Soviet Union. The differences between the “free world” and the Soviet Union were “so deep-seated that no genuine, large-scale political settlement seems likely within the present generation.” The panel was convinced, however, that something had to be done about the frightening acceleration of the arms race in which devastating power was accumulating on both sides at an unprecedented rate and in a way that would put the heart of both nations, not just international borders and armies, on the front lines of any future war. Even more dangerous was the fact that few people, even inside the government, understood the special character of the nuclear arms race. Because nuclear weapons were so

dangerous, men hesitated to think hard about them, and the resultant high level of security reduced “the quantity and quality of responsible discussion.” What most people, both inside and outside the government, failed to understand, the disarmament panel claimed, was not only that the nuclear stockpiles on both sides were growing at a phenomenal rate but also that the destructive force of the weapons in the stockpiles was increasing rapidly as new models replaced old. The panel saw no real long-term short-

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

age of fissionable material for any major power and considered nuclear weapons relatively cheap. The Soviet Union might never have as many bombs as the United States at any given time, but the panel pointed out that the Russians easily could have as many as the Americans had had a few years earlier. In a matter of five or ten years the Soviet Union would have enough nuclear weapons to destroy American society beyond hope of recovery.

Because few Americans understood the unprecedented implication of the nuclear arms race, the panel believed that the United States government had reacted to the growing Russian threat with the knee-jerk response of trying to stay ahead of the Soviet Union in weapon development and in building the capability for a massive nuclear attack in case of war. The United States, in the panel’s opinion, had backed itself into a rigid policy of massive nuclear retaliation that left the nation without flexibility for

response. 43 To provide more flexibility, the disarmament panel first recommended “a policy of candor toward the American people—and at least

equally toward its own elected representatives and responsible officials—in presenting the meaning of the arms race.” Public understanding was essen-

tial to the American system, and Americans did not show a responsible awareness of the dangers of nuclear weapons. There should be a straightforward statement from those who knew the facts, including quantities of weapons and rates of increase. The State Department advisers did not believe that the facts would cause hysteria; the present danger in the United States was not hysteria but complacency. Americans should understand the rate and impact of the Soviet danger, and the government should go beyond the point of just keeping ahead of the Russians. The panel’s other recommendations were not spelled out in as much detail, but they were firmly stated. The United States, in the consultants’ opinion, should help other nations in the free world to understand the nu-

clear threat and their relationship to America’s nuclear strength so that some sense of responsibility might be shared outside the Soviet bloc. The panel urged much more attention to continental defense of the United States, not to prevent entirely a Soviet nuclear attack, but rather to minimize its effects and to give the United States more freedom to act in a crisis. Finally, the consultants recommended that the United States disengage it-

self from the hopeless and misleading disarmament discussions in the United Nations and develop better communications with the Soviet Union. Unlike many reports by consultants, Bundy’s final draft of the panel

study reflected a broad understanding of the subject, careful analysis, a judicious balance of the ideal and the practical, and above all succinct and direct language. Eisenhower was so impressed with the report that he discussed it at some length with the National Security Council on February 18, 1953.73 He was particularly taken with the first recommendation—more

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

candor in explaining the nature of the arms race to the American people. The President asked the council members to read the report and be prepared to discuss it the following week. The council meeting on February 25 gave Dean and all the members an opportunity to express their views on the report. Dean had arranged to discuss it with Allen Dulles, a panel member, before going to the meeting. Dean favored the first recommendation on the grounds that better understanding of the growing power of nuclear weapons would have a salutary effect on both the Kremlin and the American people. Secretary Wilson led the opposition to the panel’s recommendations, primarily on the grounds that a candid explanation of the arms race would frighten the American people rather than reassure them. Eisenhower was now concerned about the first recommendation for Operation Candor. He could see that a better understanding of the catastrophic implications of nuclear warfare both in

44 the United States and throughout the world would be a step toward peace. At the same time, the President was deeply impressed with the importance of secrecy and particularly its value in keeping the Russians off balance.”* Like many things in government, candor was good in theory but hard to put into practice.

THE BATTLE REJOINED

Eisenhower's favorable reaction to the panel report represented no small accomplishment for Oppenheimer and his colleagues. In the hostile and strident atmosphere of the Cold War, it was not easy to sound the note for openness and public discussion of policies affecting the national security. By catching the President’s attention, Oppenheimer had reason to hope that the deadly issues surrounding the development and production of ever more efficient nuclear weapons would not be buried once again from public view. To bring the issues into public debate Oppenheimer presented an unclas-

sified version of the panel report at a meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York on February 17.” Oppenheimer’s very success, however, increased the likelihood that adversaries who had been trying to drive him from the government since 1949 would join forces once again to challenge him as the panel report raised old issues in a new form. Just as the President had seized on the Candor proposal as the most intriguing idea in the panel report, so others would use Candor as a symbol encompassing the complex of philosophical arguments that arose from the contemplation of thermonuclear war. Thus, Candor served as a lightning rod that inevitably drew old rivals back to the great debate over thermonuclear strategy. For Oppenheimer nothing was more fateful than the circumstances that made it possible for two of his most skillful and dedicated adversaries

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

to join forces once again just as the Candor breakthrough occurred in February 1953. Although Borden was on his way out as executive director of the Joint Committee, he had the determination and fortitude to hold on for one more skirmish with Oppenheimer on national security issues. In his lonely battle as a Democratic holdover in a Republican Administration he had the immense good fortune of acquiring the support of a former ally who was to become the President’s closest adviser on atomic energy. On March 7, two weeks after Oppenheimer’s meeting with the President, Lewis Strauss became Eisenhower's special assistant on atomic energy. Development of the hydrogen bomb had been the common interest that first brought Borden and Strauss together. In 1949 both men had felt strongly enough about the urgency of the weapon to look upon the reservations of Oppenheimer and the general advisory committee with incomprehension and dismay. The two men had worked together to redirect the trend

of events that Oppenheimer’s committee had set in motion, and they had 45 emerged victorious when President Truman decided to accelerate research on the hydrogen bomb in January 1950. After Strauss left the Commission a few weeks later, Borden arranged to have Strauss serve as a special adviser to the Joint Committee on the expansion of the Commission’s capacity for producing fissionable material, and the two men kept in touch after that assignment ended. During summer 1952 Strauss had helped Borden and Walker in providing information from his personal records for the thermonuclear chronology. ”°

Strauss and Borden were also drawn together by their growing distrust of Oppenheimer’s motives, integrity, and judgment, particularly after their experience during the hydrogen bomb debate in 1949. Borden probably first learned about the derogatory information in Oppenheimer’s security file a few weeks after President Truman’s hydrogen bomb decision, when J. Edgar Hoover testified before the Joint Committee; he also had an opportunity to review the file briefly in November 1950. ?’ The FBI’s file on Oppenheimer went back to March 1944, when an

FBI investigation revealed that Oppenheimer had belonged to several organizations infiltrated or dominated by communists. The FBI also learned that early in the 1940s Oppenheimer’s brother, wife, and former mistress had been communists. Even after he became involved in the Manhattan Project, Oppenheimer continued to associate with members of the Communist party. Strauss had known about the contents of the file at least as early as March 1947, when as a Commissioner he had reviewed it and agreed that it contained no new information warranting further consideration of Oppenheimer’s clearance. 8 Strauss’s attitude toward Oppenheimer was ambivalent at best. On the one hand, he was impressed by Oppenheimer’s intelligence and ability as an administrator and scientist. As a trustee of the Institute for Advanced Study, Strauss had urged Oppenheimer’s appointment as director; and as a

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

Commissoner, Strauss had offered Oppenheimer assistance in his work as chairman of the general advisory committee.?? On the other hand, the two men disagreed on many issues in addition to those related to the thermonuclear weapon: the merits of exchanging nuclear information and material with other nations, the need for rigid security in research activities, and the feasibility of Operation Candor. Common among Commission staff members was a story, based on one dramatic incident, that Oppenheimer had earned Strauss’s undying hatred by ridiculing him before the Joint Committee in a public hearing for his opposition to the shipment of iron isotopes to Norway in 1949. The event had occurred, but it hardly seemed a sufficient explanation for Strauss’s feelings about Oppenheimer. Strauss was sensitive to personal slights, but he was also sophisticated enough to consider many factors in making any decision.*° Both Strauss and Borden were able in 1951 and 1952 to suspend

46 any personal judgments about Oppenheimer’s loyalty, but they continued to worry about his effect on thermonuclear development. In August 1951 they had shared exasperation over what they saw as Oppenheimer’s efforts to discourage scientists from working on the hydrogen bomb. The decision led inevitably to speculation about Oppenheimer’s motivations, and the

two men once again mulled over some of the troubling information in Oppenheimer’s security file. In spring 1952 Borden was among those who attempted to remove Oppenheimer’s influence from the atomic energy program by making certain that he was not reappointed to the general advisory committee when his term expired on June 30. There is no evidence that Strauss was directly involved, but he was probably aware of the successful efforts by Teller, Murray, and Willard F. Libby to prevent Oppenheimer’s reappointment.”! Oppenheimer’s decision not to seek another term in the face of the

opposition did not end the matter. Although no longer a member of the general advisory committee, Oppenheimer did obtain a consultant’s contract from the Commission and several government boards. Hence Borden had no reason to relax his concern about Oppenheimer. Probably at Borden’s suggestion, Senator McMahon invited Francis P. Cotter, a former FBI

specialist in Soviet espionage techniques, to join the committee staff. Cotter’s sole function was to dig into every scrap of evidence, to check out every lead in the Oppenheimer file. Both Borden and Cotter followed with interest the government’s case against Joseph W. Weinberg, at one time a graduate student in physics at the University of California, for perjuring himself in testifying that he had never attended a communist meeting in Berkeley in 1941, when one such meeting was allegedly held in Oppenheimer’s residence. Perhaps Borden’s suspicions were further aroused when the case against Weinberg was suddenly dropped.” During summer 1952 Cotter continued to run down snippets of in-

formation in Oppenheimer’s security file. In November he completed a

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

working paper presenting a fair and straightforward distillation of Oppenheimer’s record. Then came Walker’s round-the-clock efforts to complete the thermonuclear chronology, the successful plan to bring the chronology

to the attention of the new President, and the Wheeler incident, which continued to haunt Borden into the spring of 1953, as both J. Edgar Hoover and Gordon Dean faulted the Joint Committee (and by implication Borden) for lax security practices revealed by the Wheeler case.*? In one way or another, all the issues with which Borden had been struggling for four years seemed to be coming to a head.

SECURITY AND CANDOR

During Strauss’s first six weeks at the White House he had little time for

Borden, Oppenheimer, or Candor as he tried to protect the Commission’s 47 nuclear projects from the Administration’s efforts to balance the budget. Because Borden was persona non grata in Administration circles after the Wheeler incident, any contacts with Strauss must have been informal and discreet. The first recorded contact between the two men in 1953 occurred on April 28, when Borden called Strauss’s office at the White House and arranged to bring over “a paper,” which he delivered personally on the afternoon of April 30. Borden’s call may have been related to launching an open attack upon Oppenheimer. That same day Strauss had telephone conversalions with six other men who were deeply involved in the movement.**

The medium of attack was to be an anonymous article in the May issue of Fortune magazine. The author, the public was to learn months later, was Charles J. V. Murphy, an editor of Fortune who had served as an Air Force reserve officer with Secretary Thomas K. Finletter. Murphy’s article purported to summarize over a period of six years Oppenheimer’s pernicious influence on the development of nuclear weapons, especially the

hydrogen bomb. Rife with inaccuracies and oversimplifications, the article cast a sinister connotation on many events familiar to those in the atomic energy establishment: the lack of progress on thermonuclear development at Los Alamos during the years when Oppenheimer dominated the Commission’s weapon development policies through the general advisory

committee; Oppenheimer’s opposition to Teller’s demand for a second weapon laboratory; Oppenheimer’s leadership in opposing an accelerated thermonuclear program in 1949; and his subtle efforts to discourage scientists from joining the project after 1950.*° Murphy, however, gave much more attention to another conflict less familiar to those in atomic energy circles. This dispute involved Oppenheimer’s disagreements with Air Force officials over the role of air power in nuclear war. As Murphy explained it, “a life-and-death struggle” had developed over national military policy “between a highly influential group of

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

American scientists and the military.” The “prime mover among the scientists” was Oppenheimer, who had “no confidence in the military’s assumption that SAC [Strategic Air Command] as a weapon of mass destruction is a real deterrent to Soviet action.” Murphy supported his thesis with a facile and oversimplified account of Oppenheimer’s alleged success in subverting a series of study projects financed by the military to investigate some strategic and tactical implications of nuclear war. These studies included Project Charles at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to evaluate defense systems against atomic attack, the creation of the Lincoln Air Defense

Laboratory in 1951 to study air defense systems, the Vista study at the California Institute of Technology in 1951 to investigate the tactical uses of nuclear weapons, and the Lincoln Summer Study in 1952 to determine the

feasibility of a continental air defense system against a Soviet nuclear attack.*°

48 In what appeared to be an accurate description of the fears and suspicions circulating at the highest levels of the Air Force at that time, Murphy explained how Oppenheimer and other scientists close to him allegedly undermined the original intent of these studies and transformed them into clever repudiations of the Air Force doctrine of strategic bombing. By summer 1952, Murphy declared, Oppenheimer and his associates were united in a sinister conspiracy calling itself ZORC (based on the initials of the four alleged conspirators). ZORC, Murphy alleged, was determined to strip the United States of its nuclear superiority in a misguided and naive hope that such action would reduce the threat of nuclear war.*’ Strauss was not the only man of influence in Washington to be aroused by Murphy’s innuendoes. On May 12 Senator Joseph R. McCarthy called on J. Edgar Hoover to discuss the possibility of starting an investi-

gation of Oppenheimer. McCarthy hinted at bipartisan support when he noted that Senator Stuart Symington, a Democrat and former Air Force Secretary, was concerned enough about Oppenheimer’s controversy with the Air Force to consider an investigation. Hoover tried to discourage McCarthy by suggesting that such a move might involve a jurisdictional dispute with the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy or the Jenner committee. But Hoover’s main concern was Oppenheimer’s broad popularity, especially

among scientists. Whatever the committee decided to do about Oppenheimer, Hoover advised, “should be done with a great deal of preliminary spade work” so that, when the investigation became public knowledge, the committee “would have substantive facts upon which to predicate its action.” 38 Strauss, who was in close contact with the FBI at the time, must have found the threat of a McCarthy investigation alarming. Not only would

it put the Administration on the defensive on the Oppenheimer case, a position Strauss would not have relished, but it could also stir up enormous popular support for Oppenheimer if the case presented against him was not convincing.

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

By this time Candor was beginning to enter Strauss’s field of vision,

perhaps for the first time, and with it came a deepening concern about Oppenheimer’s influence on Administration policy. In February, when Eisenhower had first discussed the report of the disarmament panel with Oppenheimer, Candor was a fresh idea, if somewhat naive and impractical.

But since the death of Stalin in March, the President had taken a more optimistic view toward relations with the Russians and in a speech to newspaper editors on April 16 had invited the new Soviet leadership “to awaken. . . to the point of peril . . . and to help turn the tide of history.” The more seriously the President and others within the Administration took

it, the more worried Strauss became. The planning board of the National Security Council had appointed a special committee to meet with Vannevar Bush, a member of the disarmament panel, to draw up recommendations

for implementing the panel’s report. On May 8 the committee endorsed most ideas of the Oppenheimer report in a paper distributed as NSC 151 to 49 members of the council, its staff, and most likely to Strauss.*?

The committee thought that the government could acquaint the American people with the nature of the arms race without causing them “to lose heart in the present struggle or to seek a solution through preventive war.” Neither could the proposal require any release of technical data on nuclear weapons or any compromise of intelligence sources. At the same time, the committee noted, the Candor proposal would require an important change in existing policies. The government would be releasing not only certain facts about the arms race but also its official analysis of those facts.

And to be effective the release could not occur on just one occasion; it would have to take place over a period of time. Such a plan would require some understanding by the Congress and some mechanism for deciding what information should be released and how. The committee then proceeded to outline the kinds of information to be released; the essential principle was that the government would not continue its “negative” policy of releasing fragments of information only when pressed but rather would adopt a “positive” policy of continuous publica-

tion of information. “It would mean that the President and his principal officers would regularly take the people into their confidence in the convic-

tion that in a democracy an informed public is the best safeguard against extreme public reactions.” The committee recommended that specific information be released on the degree of defense possible and that the statement be tied to the panel’s recommendations on continental defense.

One of the touchiest topics was the proposed description of the United States stockpile of nuclear weapons. Stopping far short of the panel’s recommendations, the committee did not propose to release actual numbers of weapons but to speak rather of the growing destructive power of stockpiled weapons, perhaps only in terms of the number of square miles that would be devastated by such a weapon. The American people would

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

be told that the feasibility of thermonuclear weapons had been demonstrated, but it was not yet clear how thermonuclear weapons would alter the nature of atomic warfare in view of the already enormous destructive capability of fission weapons. As for Soviet capabilities, the nation would learn that within two years the Soviet Union would have “a stockpile numbered in the hundreds, and not many years thereafter in excess of a thousand.”

OPPENHEIMER AND CANDOR

Now that Candor was becoming the centerpiece in the Administration’s plans for responding to the dangers of thermonuclear war, Strauss did not dare to attack the proposal directly, although his every instinct must have rebelled at any significant release of weapon information that might help

20 the Soviet Union. One recourse was to point to the disadvantages of Candor in his discussions with the White House staff. Another was to undermine Oppenheimer’s influence and, by raising questions about the scientist’s security record, perhaps remove him from the Administration’s policy councils altogether. The latter course suggested that Strauss and Borden might

cooperate in seeking an answer to the old question of Oppenheimer’s reliability. By mid-May 1953 Borden was devoting most of his time at the Joint

Committee to the Oppenheimer case and continuing salvos against the Commission in the Wheeler security controversy. Perhaps at Strauss’s instigation, the FBI asked the Commission’s security office to forward any information it received about Oppenheimer’s plans for foreign travel, a move suggesting that Oppenheimer’s activities abroad might somehow risk a compromise of classified information. One week later Borden called Waters at the Commission’s security office to ask whether there was “anything

new in the Oppenheimer case. Before ending the call Borden asked Waters to send him Oppenheimer’s security file.” With Cotter’s working paper on Oppenheimer already in hand, Borden did not need Oppenheimer’s file for a quick review of the facts but rather for a thoughtful study of every shred of evidence, every implication and nuance that might shed some light on the Oppenheimer mystery. Except for a brief interruption on May 19 and 20 for another acrimonious exchange of correspondence with the Commission on the Wheeler incident,

Borden buried himself in the Oppenheimer case. After wrestling in his mind one more time with each scrap of evidence, he compiled fifteen pages of questions ranging from serious to frivolous. His questioning, legitimate, improper, and silly, implied that Oppenheimer had been unjustly shielded from the requisites of a thorough security review.*!

Gradually Borden began to see the Oppenheimer case in the same light in which he viewed the whole hydrogen bomb development. That is,

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

just as he believed that the thermonuclear program had been neglected through lack of attention, so he thought that the Oppenheimer case had been ignored by being “kicked under the rug.” The more he thought about them, the more Borden analyzed the two issues in the same vein, concluding that the same kind of attitude, almost the same kind of conspiracy, was

working with respect to the H-bomb issue and Oppenheimer. But the Oppenheimer question needed, Borden thought, a single document, like the thermonuclear chronology, that pulled together all the disparate facts to show the Commission’s reluctance to face the Oppenheimer question squarely. Strauss in the meantime was becoming more and more preoccupied

with Oppenheimer and Candor. On May 25 he confided to an FBI official his suspicion that Oppenheimer’s communist sympathies were not yet dead. A Commission report, which Strauss had requested, revealed that David

Hawkins, a physicist and former member of the Communist party, had been ol hired to work at Los Alamos during the war at Oppenheimer’s instigation and had remained there until July 1947. Strauss also described in detail his opposition to Oppenheimer’s attempt to bring Felix Browder, the son of the American Communist party leader, to the Institute for Advanced Study on a fellowship. Strauss’s anxieties had been aroused because Browder was reportedly not an outstanding scholar and because Oppenheimer, in Strauss’s estimation, had employed questionable tactics in trying to push through the appointment.” Just the week before, Strauss had discovered that Oppenheimer had called the White House to request a meeting with Eisenhower on an urgent matter that he would reveal to no one but the President.” Privately, Strauss could only guess that the request had something to do with the forthcoming meeting of the National Security Council to discuss the Administration’s plans for Candor. Or was it possible that Oppenheimer had caught wind of the renewed interest in his security file and was trying to protect himself? Strauss asked the FBI whether it would cause any difficulty if he mentioned his concerns about Oppenheimer to the President when Strauss saw him that afternoon; the FBI had no objection. Strauss’s misgivings about Oppenheimer were also heightened by a report from the Commission that Oppenheimer had written a letter to the New York security office outlining his plans to visit Brazil in June and Japan in September.“ Could these trips conceivably be designed to provide Oppenheimer a chance to talk freely with scientists abroad or possibly even with communist agents? Strauss requested a copy of the letter immediately. Strauss could take some satisfaction in the fact that he had been alert enough to prevent Oppenheimer from catching the President unaware either at his private session with Eisenhower, now scheduled for May 29, or at the council meeting on Candor on May 27. But the results of that meeting were hardly comforting to Strauss, who saw Candor as foolishness

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

at its best and a threat to national security at its worst. Much discussion at the council meeting reiterated the positions taken on February 25: the President’s infatuation with the Candor idea despite its incompatibility with his strong instinct for secrecy and the opinions of Secretaries Wilson and Humphrey that Candor would scare the American people. In the end the argument seemed to move the President in the direction of Candor, but he still had reservations. These led him to the idea, and then to a decision, that all government statements in the future should avoid any reference to thermonuclear weapons and should use only the generic term “atomic weapons.” Before making a final decision, Eisenhower wanted to see a draft of a speech that he might use to launch the project.” Oppenheimer’s new success in promoting Candor with the President must have heightened Strauss’s anxiety about the scientist’s influence over national security policy. If Oppenheimer was a security risk—a possibility

o2 Strauss had been unable to reject—his support of Candor could be interpreted as an attempt to compromise atomic secrets. The gnawing doubts that Oppenheimer’s security file had raised in the minds of Strauss and Borden were now more pertinent than ever before.

For information on security matters Strauss had well-established lines of communication with both the Commission and the FBI. Not only could he telephone Dean and J. Edgar Hoover directly, but he also had informal contacts at the working level in both agencies through Bryan LaPlante and Charles Bates, Hoover’s liaison agent with the Commission. During the next year Bates would be an inconspicuous but almost daily visitor to the Commission’s headquarters building.

On June 4 Strauss called the FBI and asked once again to see the bureau’s summary of the Oppenheimer file. When Bates arrived at Strauss’s White House office a few hours later with the summary, Strauss told him that Eisenhower had drafted him against his wishes to serve as chairman of

the Commission. Strauss had warned the President that “he could not do the job” if Oppenheimer were connected in any way with the program. Strauss had spoken very frankly to the President about Oppenheimer and intended to do the same with Robert Cutler, who handled national security affairs for the President. Approaching Cutler would be tricky, Strauss said, because Cutler served with Oppenheimer on the Harvard Board of Overseers and “did not like to hear criticism of his ‘friends.’ ” Strauss would have been even more concerned had he known about a new development in the Oppenheimer affair. During Oppenheimer’s visit to Washington the previous week, the scientist had asked Dean to extend his consultantship with the Commission for another year beyond its expiration date of June 30. Time was short; Oppenheimer would be leaving for Brazil within two weeks, and by the time he returned Dean would no longer

be chairman. It was also quite likely that Dean and Oppenheimer knew that Strauss would by then be in charge of the Commission, a situation that

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

would end all chances for Oppenheimer’s reappointment. In light of the strong opposition to Oppenheimer revealed by Murphy’s article, continuation of his Commission consultantship was the only way of retaining Oppen-

heimer’s voice in the government in national security affairs, and specifically Candor. Without taking time to discuss the issue with the Commission or the staff, Dean instructed the general manager’s office to renew Oppenheimer’s contract. The renewal was dated June 5, perhaps the most fateful day in Robert Oppenheimer’s life. As Strauss wrote nine years later: “It was this contract which involved the AEC in the clearance of Dr. Oppenheimer and which required that the Commission, rather than some other agency of the Government, be made responsible to hear and resolve the charges against him.” *’

By the first week in June the future looked promising for Candor. Oppenheimer’s renewed contract assured that Candor would continue to be

well represented in national policy councils. There was also every assur- as) ance that the President’s speech launching Candor would be drafted quickly and efficiently. The task had been assigned to Charles D. Jackson, the ebullient editor of Time magazine who had joined the Eisenhower campaign as a speech writer in 1952. Far more imaginative and adventuresome than his boss, Jackson was constantly bombarding the President with all sorts of ideas for selling the Administration’s policies to the American public. Operation Candor had struck a resonant chord in Jackson, and he took

up the cause with enthusiasm. He even went so far as to sound out his friends in the advertising business in New York on how the job might be done. As Jackson often discovered, however, he quickly moved far beyond the President’s wildest expectations. Eisenhower refused Jackson’s suggestion that he use the dedication of the nuclear submarine prototype in Idaho as an occasion for announcing Candor. The President was no more receptive to a State Department draft of a Candor kick-off speech that Jackson submitted about the middle of June.* While Jackson was trying to bring the President’s thoughts on Candor into focus, the idea of informing the American people about the arms race was gaining public currency. For one thing the informed public knew that the study by the State Department panel existed although the full contents of the report had not been released.*? Oppenheimer, however, known to be chairman of the panel, removed some ambiguity in June, when Foreign Affairs published an article based on his February speech before the Council on Foreign Relations.*° Oppenheimer had been careful to separate his personal views from any government policy discussions, and he had cleared a draft of the article with the White House. But anyone who knew anything about the situation could see that Oppenheimer was not writing in a vacuum. In describing the arms race, Oppenheimer complained that “I must tell about it without communicating anything. | must reveal its nature without revealing anything.”

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

Oppenheimer did relate information that had already been released about the Soviet program, namely that the Russians had accomplished three nuclear explosions and were producing fissionable material in substantial quantities. He also stated his own personal guess that the Russians were about four years behind the United States and that their scale of operations was not as big as that of the United States four years earlier. The American people, however, should know “quantitatively and, above all, authoritatively where we stand in these matters.” Oppenheimer confessed that he had never discussed the classified facts about the nuclear arms race with any responsible group “that did not come away with a great sense of anxiety and somberness at what they saw.” The United States’ four-year lead over the Russians would mean little as the nuclear stockpile grew; America’s twenty-thousandth bomb would be of small comfort when the Russians had their two-thousandth. Then he added the sentence that would

o4: long outlive him: “We may be likened to two scorpions in a bottle, each capable of killing the other, but only at the risk of his own life.” One obvious frustration Oppenheimer encountered in writing his article was that he could say nothing at all about thermonuclear weapons,

which lay at the center of the panel’s original concern and undoubtedly sparked Eisenhower's interest in the panel report. The frustration was the same for Eisenhower, Dean, or anyone else in the government who was privy to the facts. On the one hand, there was a natural tendency to withhold information about the thermonuclear test as much as possible; on the other, the results were so obviously significant to national security that others had to know. Dean had sensed this feeling late in May 1953, when he saw for the first time a special film prepared by Joint Task Force 132 on the Enewetak test in November 1952. The film explained in detail the physical principles

involved, the working components of the Mike device, and the elaborate preparations taken to gather technical data about the detonation. Although the film contained enough Hollywood clichés to annoy many viewers, it did effectively build suspense for more than an hour as the spine-tingling mo-

ment of detonation approached. The climax came in the extraordinary technicolor shots of the detonation, supported by statistical data that helped to put the incredible scale of the explosion in perspective. *! Dean was so impressed that he immediately called Robert Cutler at

the White House to urge that the President see the film. On June 1, the President, the Cabinet, the National Security Council, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Commissioners assembled in the East Wing theater to view the uncut, top secret version. The following day Dean and the President discussed how some of the more sensitive technical information in the film could be deleted so that a shorter version, still classified secret, could be shown to a larger audience.*? Within the Administration the film probably

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

did far more than Oppenheimer’s article to stimulate interest in Operation Candor. Dean took up the Candor theme in the closing moments of his valedictory press conference as chairman of the Commission on June 25, 1953. Always the practical man, Dean cited the need to amend the Atomic Energy

Act to give the Commission more flexibility in dealing with other nations and the need to release more technical information to industry. But most important of all in Dean’s estimation was the release of information about atomic weapons in order to develop an informed public opinion, “which is the only realistic base upon which our defense and foreign policies can be built in the atomic age.” Both Oppenheimer’s and Dean’s statements re-

ceived wide attention in the American press. As the Christian Science Monitor noted, “A strong current has begun to flow in the direction of less secrecy and more information for the American people about the atom.” D0

STRAUSS AND CANDOR

The current of public opinion running in favor of Candor continued to pick up speed during the first week of July 1953. In response to a question about the Oppenheimer article and the Dean valedictory, the President admitted at a press conference on July 8 that

personally I think the time has arrived when the American people must have more information on this subject, if they are to act intelligently. . . . I think the time has come to be far more, let us say, frank with the American people than we have been in the past. As the new chairman of the Commission and as a member of Eisenhower’s inner circle of advisers on national security, Strauss could not entertain for a moment the idea of contradicting the President, but he was not ready to give up the fight. He would not, as the Washington Post hoped in an editorial on his appointment, move with the Candor current.™ Even within the Commission Strauss had to be careful not to oppose Candor openly, but he did do so indirectly. His first opportunity came when he received a comprehensive analysis of the Commission’s policy on security and classification, which Smyth had prepared in the closing weeks of the Dean administration. Smyth had concluded that it would be in the national interest to permit a greater exchange of technical information with Belgium, Canada, and the United Kingdom and to release much more data

on reactor technology to American industry. In some areas, like thermonuclear weapons, continuing the most severe security restrictions was in order, but Smyth accepted the general thesis of the Oppenheimer panel that the public should know more about the nature of the arms race.*°

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

Strauss had also received a letter from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy citing the favorable comments by the President and Dean on Candor and requesting a detailed study of the need to revise the Atomic Energy Act to permit a wider dissemination of technical information. Without expressing his views on these specific questions, Strauss suggested that

both the Smyth paper and the Joint Committee letter involved the same general issues, which he proposed to discuss in September, when he planned to take his fellow Commissioners on a weekend retreat at White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia.”

Some hint of Strauss’s current views on security appeared in his correspondence with Senator Alexander Wiley, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Wiley wrote Strauss of his deep concern about American vulnerability to a Soviet nuclear attack, commenting that until the American people were acquainted with the given facts of the nuclear

26 arms race they would be living in a “fool’s paradise.” In his reply Strauss did not mention Candor, but he was quick to stress the need for balancing the value of such information to the American people and the value of the same information to potential enemies. “All of us pray,” he wrote Wiley, “that history will vindicate the wisdom of our judgments, both as to what is revealed and what is continued secure.” ™’

The Commission’s staff had numerous occasions during Strauss’s first month as chairman to observe his sensitivity to all matters dealing with security and the control of information. On July 14 he questioned an earlier Commission decision authorizing the transmittal of unclassified drawings of a Brookhaven accelerator to a group of high-energy physicists in Europe. Strauss and Murray were both fearful that the drawings, although unclassified, would help other nations build accelerators to produce fissionable material. When Smyth assured him that this was not likely, Strauss still did not believe that the Commission would receive any direct benefit from the

release and chose to delay a decision until he could discuss the problem with Ernest Lawrence. The clear implication was that the Commission was unlikely to benefit from research performed by other countries with American materials or technical data. Reaching back to the period of his earlier

service on the Commission, Strauss requested information on whether a technical report had been received from Norway on research conducted with a radioactive iron isotope that the Commission had released over Strauss’s objection in 1949. Strauss also opposed releasing an unclassified report on the Commission’s reactor development program to the Joint Committee and expressed grave concern over the numbers of emergency

clearances and missing top secret documents.* For old-timers on the staff Strauss’s readiness to pounce on security matters reminded them of sarlier days.

Strauss was careful to make no public statements about Candor but he worked behind the scenes to counter the Oppenheimer and Dean state-

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

ments and even, in a subtle way, the remarks by the President himself. After April 28, when he apparently first discussed with Charles Murphy the article exposing the alleged Oppenheimer conspiracy, Strauss was in frequent contact with Murphy and most probably helped him to prepare a second article, which appeared in the August 1953 issue of Fortune. More temperate and accurate than the first article, the second attempted to refute Oppenheimer’s main arguments in Foreign Affairs without mentioning the insinuations of conspiracy in the May article. By reporting the President’s

remarks in the opening paragraphs without comment, Murphy gave his readers an opportunity to apply his criticisms of Oppenheimer’s position indirectly to the President. The Murphy article contained arguments typically used by Strauss to support rigid security for weapon information and particularly for stockpile figures. Also like Strauss, Murphy placed infor-

mation about nuclear power plants in a separate category as potentially

suitable for release to the public. On July 16, the day Murphy sent his o7 manuscript to the printer, he called Strauss’s office for some last-minute advice. Almost as a credit, the article included one photograph, a portrait of Strauss with the caption: “Strauss believes in keeping a tight lid on information about U.S. atomic weapons.” *” Although Murphy and Strauss had been too circumspect in the For-

tune article to be accused of challenging the President, the article left no doubt about Strauss’s position in the minds of Administration leaders. C. D. Jackson brought up the subject over cocktails with Strauss on August 4. Strauss reassured Jackson that he was neither involved in a feud with Oppenheimer nor opposed to the President’s speaking to the nation on Can-

dor but that he did object to the use of “any comparative arithmetic” on American and Soviet nuclear stockpiles.

JOE 4 Any relaxation of security that Operation Candor might have inspired was suddenly blocked by new developments in the international arms race during August 1953. On August 8, in a speech before the Supreme Soviet in Moscow, Premier Georgi M. Malenkov announced that the United States no longer had a monopoly of the hydrogen bomb. In response to press inquiries Strauss blandly replied that the United States had never assumed that the bomb was beyond Soviet capabilities and for that reason had embarked on its own project three years earlier. © On August 12 Strauss and the Administration received from the Air

Force long-range detection system the first fragmentary evidence that Malenkov’s statement was not a hollow claim. The Soviet Union had apparently conducted its fourth nuclear weapon test, which the Americans called

Joe 4. Because the detonation had been quite powerful, the Americans

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

thought it was possibly a thermonuclear device, but direct evidence would not be available until airborne samples of radioactive debris from the test could be collected and analyzed. In the meantime it was extremely important for intelligence reasons to prevent the information from becoming pub-

lic; the longer that event could be postponed, the more easily could the government conceal the degree of efficiency and accuracy of the long-range detection system. Perhaps for this reason, Strauss did not immediately inform his fellow Commissioners but chose rather, as special assistant to the President, to work with the White House staff in drafting announcements that might be used under a variety of circumstances.”

Strauss and Jackson met with the President in New York on the morning of August 19 to discuss both Candor and the Soviet test. Eisenhower, although reluctant to make any announcement, finally approved for

later release a simple statement to the effect that the Russians had con28 ducted an atomic test. Later the same day in Washington, after conferring with the other Commissioners and State Department and CIA officials, Strauss decided not to release any announcement until information from the first samples arrived later in the evening. In Strauss’s office at the Commission headquarters at eight o’clock, scientists from the Air Force long-range detection system stated conclusively that “a fission and thermonuclear reaction had taken place within Soviet territory.” Despite State Department

assurances that the Russians were not likely to elaborate on Malenkov’s statement of August 8, Strauss learned at ten-thirty that evening that Moscow radio had announced a Soviet test involving a hydrogen reaction several days earlier. After redrafting the public announcement to contain a reference to thermonuclear reactions, Strauss decided that he would have to clear the release with the President in view of Eisenhower’s order not to mention the hydrogen bomb in public statements. Because the President was at that time flying to Denver, Strauss was unable to clear the release until almost midnight. The next day some of the nation’s newspapers carried the headline: “REDS TEST H-BOMB.”°®

For most Americans, perhaps even for Strauss and others in the Administration, that simple statement sufficiently described Soviet capabilities. The hydrogen bomb was more than a weapon; it was a symbol of military capability that gave Oppenheimer’s analogy of “two scorpions in a bottle” a new and more terrible significance. As Congressman Cole of the Joint Committee pointed out to the American Legion in October 1953, the Russians had detonated a hydrogen weapon “only nine months after our

own hydrogen test.” Although Strauss, like all other members of the Administration, was enjoined by the President from public comment on hydrogen bombs, Strauss did confide to others in classified discussions his fears that the Soviet Union had bypassed some earlier refinements of fission weapons and had concentrated on thermonuclear designs several years earlier, probably before the United States accelerated its own thermonuclear

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

program in 1950. The President himself in a press conference on September 30, 1953, had referred to the Soviet achievement as the creation of a

hydrogen bomb. The fact was, however, that neither the Commission nor the Administration had any incontrovertible evidence on August 20 or even on October 12 that the Soviet Union had developed a thermonuclear weapon. As the Commission’s original statement carefully put it, the initial evidence on August 20 merely confirmed that the detonation involved both fissionable and thermonuclear materials. [It was apparent that the general statements

made in 1953 and later years about Soviet superiority in thermonuclear weapon development were far from the whole truth. The Soviet scientists had not detonated a “true” hydrogen weapon within nine months after Mike. They had not developed an airborne thermonuclear weapon before the United States. And it was not true that the Americans had taken the

wrong path in using deuterium while the Russians had struck out directly a9 for the more practical lithium-deuteride approach. Why then did these misconceptions arise and then persist in discussions of national security issues? First, the inherent limitations of intelligence-gathering systems made it impossible in 1953, or even many years later, for American scientists to construct an authoritative description of all

features in Joe 4. The nation’s most experienced and talented scientists could and did disagree in interpreting some evidence. Second, and more important, the extreme secrecy that surrounded both the American thermonuclear program and the intelligence reports on Soviet developments caused much confusion. Some Commissioners apparently were not apprised even of the simple facts deduced by the scientists.© Although some facts did leak into the public press, distortions inevitably occurred as reporters speculated on the fragmentary evidence and the Commission for security reasons refrained from confirming or denying the accuracy of such speculations. For more than two decades the most elementary facts about Mike

and Joe 4 were unconfirmed, and a full description of these devices will probably not be revealed in this century. Lacking a full understanding of the qualitative differences between the Soviet and American devices, Strauss and others in the Administration had no compunctions in assuming the worst about the Soviet thermonuclear challenge.

THE QUEST FOR CANDOR

During summer 1953, Jackson by his own admission had had little success in producing an acceptable draft of the Candor speech for the President.

No matter what approach he took to the meaning of the thermonuclear weapon, Jackson found that he ended up with a gruesome story of human destruction. Unless the Administration could find some positive hope to

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

present to the American people and the world, the horrifying consequences of nuclear warfare would simply generate fear, and, as the President re-

marked, the public could not be expected to reach an intelligent understanding in an atmosphere of fear. Joe 4 seemed to heighten the tension that the threat of thermonuclear weapons had already created in both the government and the nation. On one side, Joe 4 represented a massive increase in the Soviet Union’s nuclear capability, a trend that seemed to make the arguments for Candor even more urgent. There now seemed to be that much less information about American weapons to conceal from the Russians, and it was all the more imperative to acquaint the American people with the truth of their predicament, however unpleasant that knowledge might be. On the other side, it was possible to argue, as some did, that Joe 4 required a tightening of belts, a new dedication to enlarging the United States’ own nuclear ca-

60 pabilities, and a need to protect every technical secret that still remained in American hands. Eisenhower himself apparently felt these same kinds of tensions. Although he was among the most conservative of his Administration in wanting to seal off the details of weapon technology from the nation’s potential enemies, the President refused to abandon his initial conviction that the world needed to understand the awesome dangers of the thermonuclear age if unspeakable disaster was to be avoided. Thus, despite his dissatisfaction with Jackson’s drafts, Eisenhower continued to push for Candor. By early September, Jackson, with help from his friends in the National Advertising Council, had proposed an elaborate scheme for a series of seven television programs beginning in October. The President himself would

lead off with his own statement on “The Safety of the Republic in the Atomic Age.” On successive Sundays Cabinet officers and other Adminis-

tration officials would participate in round-table discussions similar to those Eisenhower and some of his Cabinet members had presented on June 3, 1953. These discussions would cover international affairs, the capabilities of the Soviet bloc, the need for strengthening the free world, the dangers of subversion at home, and the role of civilians in an age of peril.® From the outset Jackson’s television series seemed doomed to failure. Some government officials, J. Edgar Hoover for example, were reluctant to participate; of equal concern to Jackson were those anxious to speak their minds. Jackson had been careful to exclude Defense Secretary Wilson, who had already demonstrated his vulnerability to baited questions in press conferences. Even with careful selection of participants and preparation of a script, it would be difficult to predict the impact of the programs in the still relatively unfamiliar medium of television. Given the exceptional sensitivity of the subject, it was frightening to contemplate the poten-

tial damage of a casual remark in a series of relatively unstructured discussions. ©

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

In the end two developments during September 1953 killed the television series. First, the idea itself inevitably leaked to the press with disastrous consequences; now, no matter what the President decided, some of the press would probably accuse him of being less than candid about Candor. Second, “a Babel of conflicting statements,” as columnist Arthur Krock put it, developed about the imminence of the Soviet thermonuclear threat. Strauss himself, in a speech before the National Security Industrial Association on September 30, voiced publicly for the first time his fears that the Soviet Union had bypassed research on fission weapons to beat the United States to the punch in developing the hydrogen bomb. Arthur S. Flemming, director of the Office of Defense Mobilization and an advocate of industrial dispersion, had stated in a public report on October 4 that “Soviet Russia is capable of delivering the most destructive weapon ever devised by man on chosen targets in the United States.” Congressman Cole, remarking that

he preferred “financial ruination” to “atomic devastation,” urged the ex- 61 penditure of $10 billion for air defense. Val Peterson, whose Federal Civil Defense Administration budget had been severely cut by the Eisenhower Administration, saw no hope for a peaceful settlement of the Cold War. But Secretary Wilson thought the Soviet Union was three or four years behind the United States in developing both thermonuclear weapons and the aircraft to carry them.° These and other contradictory statements on the threat posed by Joe 4, had reached epidemic proportions in the nation’s press by the second week in October. After a long discussion of the problem at the National Security Council meeting on October 7, 1953, Eisenhower decided to accept Strauss’s proposal that all statements about thermonuclear weapons by Administration officials first be cleared with the chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. ”

The next day at his weekly press conference, Eisenhower read a carefully prepared statement on Joe 4. The Soviet Union had tested “an atomic device in which some part of the explosive force was derived from a

thermonuclear reaction.” The Soviet Union now had “the capability of atomic attack on us, and such capability will increase with the passage of time.” The President did not “intend to disclose the details of our strength in atomic weapons of any sort, but it is large and increasing steadily.” The statement, repeating words used by Strauss in his September 30 speech and by Senator Hickenlooper, a conservative Republican member of the Joint Committee, seemed to kill a central proposal by the Oppenheimer panel for Project Candor. That statement, plus the President’s assignment of Strauss as the Administration’s watchdog over thermonuclear information, led the press to conclude that Candor was now dead.” The President, strangely enough, did not seem to share that view. Because he believed that the people of the United States and of the world could be given the facts they needed about the dangers of nuclear warfare

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

without revealing such details, he had never considered detailed revelations about thermonuclear capabilities or the weapon stockpile an essential element of Candor. But Eisenhower wanted some positive suggestion that would give hope for the future. He was intrigued with developing an idea that had occurred to him during his vacation in Denver during August. When he had returned to Washington briefly for Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson’s funeral on September 10, he had asked General Robert Cutler, who handled national security affairs, to convey his idea to Strauss and Jackson. “Suppose,” the President suggested, “the United States and the Soviets were each to turn over to the United Nations, for peaceful uses, X Kilograms of fissionable material.” ”

62 STRAUSS AND OPPENHEIMER Strauss may well have taken some comfort in the President’s suggestion as a move away from what he saw as Oppenheimer’s dangerous and naive proposal for Candor. But were Oppenheimer and his friends merely naive, or were there sinister motives behind their continuing efforts to promote Candor even in the face of the terse Soviet announcement of Joe 4? How could an intelligent person like Oppenheimer support such a hair-brained idea when the Soviet Union was obviously out to overtake the United States in nuclear weapon development? The gnawing doubts about Oppenheimer’s loyalty that Strauss had shared with Borden since 1950 continued to haunt both men. Borden seemed to drop out of Strauss’s world after leaving the Joint Committee at the end of May 1953. Except for one telephone conversation on July 16, there is no evidence that the two men communicated during the remainder of that year. Borden, unable to fathom the Oppenheimer mystery posed in the scores of questions that he had assembled on the subject, left Washington for his vacation retreat near the St. Lawrence River. There he would continue to ponder the shadowy record of Oppenheimer’s past and the scientist’s impact on the development of nuclear weapons. ” Strauss had no such opportunity to retreat from the Oppenheimer enigma. As chairman of the Commission, he was now directly responsible

for protecting what he saw as the little that was left of the nation’s supremacy in nuclear weapon technology, and he now knew to his dismay that his future as a government official was closely linked to Oppenheimer’s. Dean’s action in extending Oppenheimer’s consultant contract had seen to that, and for Strauss there was no easy escape. He and J. Edgar Hoover had agreed that it would be dangerous to attack Oppenheimer directly unless there was convincing evidence against him.” Strauss was not eager to risk his cordial relations with America’s scientific giants, something he greatly cherished, and his leadership of the Commission in a dra-

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

matic showdown with a scientist as popular and prestigious as Oppenheimer. Patience and the expiration of Oppenheimer’s contract on June 30, 1954, might take care of the Oppenheimer problem. But in the meantime Strauss could not afford to overlook any scrap of evidence that might convince the public that Oppenheimer could not be trusted. If such information should fall into his hands, Strauss would have no choice but to risk his political future to protect the national security.

During summer 1953, Strauss pursued his discreet inquiries of Oppenheimer’s activities with the help of Bryan LaPlante, now his security

aide, and Charles Bates of the FBI. Strauss continued to be concerned about Oppenheimer’s plans for foreign travel, presumably because trips abroad would offer him a chance to contact communist agents or even to slip behind the [ron Curtain. When the first intelligence reports on Joe 4 arrived, Strauss’s level of anxiety rose. On August 18, the day before the

Soviets announced Joe 4, Strauss asked for Oppenheimer’s security file, 63 which had remained at the Joint Committee since Borden requested it on May 14. The next day, before meeting with the President to discuss Joe 4 and Candor, Strauss complained privately to his fellow Commissioners about Oppenheimer’s request for classified defense documents. The Commission could refuse Oppenheimer only with difficulty because Dean had extended Oppenheimer’s consultant contract in June. Strauss was further annoyed to learn on August 31 that Oppenheimer had been seeking information from the Commission staff about the recent Soviet test series, apparently in disregard of Strauss’s instructions that all such information would be disseminated only through his office. In an attempt to head off Oppenheimer, Strauss told the staff that he would speak to Oppenheimer personally on September 2.” Unknown to his fellow Commissioners, Strauss had already been in direct contact with Oppenheimer, who had called Strauss at his Virginia farm on August 28 for an appointment in Washington on September 1. When Strauss had suggested an afternoon meeting on that day, Oppenheimer had begged off, saying that he had an important appointment at the White House. Anxious to know what Oppenheimer was up to, Strauss asked LaPlante to arrange to have Oppenheimer put under FBI surveillance during his visit to Washington. The bureau dutifully reported back on September 2 that Oppenheimer had not gone to the White House but had spent the entire afternoon in the men’s bar of the Statler Hotel with columnist Marquis Childs. The surveillance also revealed that Joseph Volpe, Jr., a former general counsel of the Commission and Oppenheimer’s lawyer in the Weinberg case, had visited Oppenheimer at the hotel for a half hour that evening. Volpe had then been trailed to a food store, where he purchased groceries and took them to the home of a former Commission employee who had worked as a special assistant to Chairman Lilienthal. Strauss guessed that Oppenheimer was giving Childs information for articles in the Wash-

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

ington Post supporting Oppenheimer’s views on national security. The information that Volpe had visited the former Commission associate, a woman who, the FBI said, had a record of some association with communist-front organizations, conjured up images of illicit and possibly treasonable relationships reminiscent of those in which Oppenheimer had been involved during the 1930s. Oppenheimer’s obvious lie to Strauss about his commitments for September | reinforced Strauss’s conviction that Oppenheimer and his friends fell short of acceptable standards of morality and to that extent were less than fully trustworthy. ”

NICHOLS AND OPPENHEIMER

After his morning conference with Oppenheimer on September 2, Strauss

64 looked forward to a more pleasant meeting. He had invited Commissioners Murray and Zuckert to lunch with Major General Kenneth D. Nichols, Strauss’s candidate to replace Marion W. Boyer as general manager. Nichols, a West Point graduate and a career Army officer with a Ph.D. in engineering, had served with General Groves in the Manhattan Project. Following World War II Nichols had been a consultant to the Joint Committee. Nichols already had a reputation for being tough, principled, and opinionated. Rejected outright for any position on the Commission staff in 1947 because of his strong ties to the Manhattan Project, Nichols had continually challenged the Commission’s authority in military matters. With Oppenheimer, Nichols had raised the ire of the Air Force by advocating greater emphasis on tactical weapons; but in contrast with the Princeton physicist, Nichols was also counted among the staunchest proponents of the hydrogen bomb. ””

The luncheon began with some reminiscences about the Manhattan Project, and then conversation turned to Oppenheimer’s position on the hydrogen bomb and the renewal of his clearance in June. Murray seized the opportunity to explain how the contract with Oppenheimer had been executed. According to Murray, Dean had not consulted the other Commissioners before renewing the contract. Murray’s inference was clear: once again in the interest of expediency unwarranted shortcuts had been taken to maintain Oppenheimer’s clearance. ®

The luncheon meeting cleared the way for Nichols to assume the office of general manager on November 1, 1953, with a clear mandate to carry out the atomic energy policies of the Republican Administration

as interpreted by Strauss. For over a decade Nichols’s position on the Oppenheimer case, although complex, had remained consistent. Intimately familiar with Oppenheimer’s record, Nichols never shared Strauss’s and Borden’s fears that Oppenheimer might be a Soviet agent. Nevertheless Nichols maintained that Oppenheimer was a major security risk and should

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

not be granted clearance. Nichols had opposed granting Oppenheimer’s clearance in 1942; when the war ended and the need for taking chances was past, Nichols attempted to instigate a review of all questionable clearances, including Oppenheimer’s. Whenever possible Nichols encouraged officials, particularly in the Department of Defense, to discontinue consultation with Oppenheimer. Nichols was more or less satisfied with the progress made in gradually terminating Oppenheimer’s various clearances.

Now, as general manager, Nichols was in a position to complete the process. ”

TOWARD THE PEACEFUL ATOM

During September and October 1953 the Oppenheimer case was a matter

of chronic but not paramount concern for Strauss. Much higher on his 65 agenda was the President’s suggestion that the United States and the Soviet Union might divert equal amounts of fissionable material to peaceful purposes. At first Strauss did not see any practical advantage in Eisenhower's

suggestion. What good would it do to contribute fissionable materials to peaceful uses if the United States and the Soviet Union both retained large amounts in the form of weapons? And how would it be possible to protect the contributed material from falling into the hands of an aggressor nation? Not willing to take his fellow Commissioners into his confidence on so sensitive a matter, Strauss confined his discussion of the subject to breakfast meetings with Jackson at the Metropolitan Club in Washington. From these sessions the new effort took the name of Project Wheaties.*° By mid-September Strauss began to think better of the idea and suggested that it be considered by an ad hoc committee on disarmament within the National Security Council. With the President’s approval Strauss set out to put his ideas on paper. Starting with the assumption that any agreement with the Soviet Union “would be presently unenforceable by any known means,” he concluded that any plan for partial or total atomic disarmament would have to be “clearly and unequivocally advantageous” to the United States and that any proposal would have to benefit the United States, even if the Soviet Union rejected it. Such an agreement would have to be “independent of reliance upon continued good faith or enforcement” because absolute accountability for all fissionable material produced would be impossible. The agreement would have to be acceptable to nonnuclear nations and could not rely on international ownership, control, or operation of any facilities within the United States or the Soviet Union.®' Building on Eisenhower's idea, Strauss proposed that all uranium and thorium mines be shut down for ten years. All plutonium production reactors would cease operation except for one facility in each country for producing radioactive isotopes for research. Each nuclear nation would de-

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

liver a fixed amount of fissionable material each month to a “World Atomic Power Administration.” To provide maximum protection for the material,

Strauss proposed that it either be stored as a highly diluted solution in underground tanks at some isolated location, such as Ascension Island, or be dispersed to a large number of scattered sites. Strauss acknowledged that the plan would not immediately reduce the threat of biological, nuclear, or conventional warfare, but it did offer “a means of impounding gradually the devastation of atomic warfare and, by its simplicity and plausibility, it would be likely to attract the adherence of the small neutrals and the enthusiastic support of plain people.” Strauss’s preoccupation with the security aspects of the proposal was not likely to appeal to Eisenhower or Jackson, but the plan did embody the President’s basic strategy—to approach world disarmament, not in one dramatic proposal, but in small steps in tune with existing realities and simple

66 enough for the public to understand. Complex plans for balanced reductions of both nuclear and conventional armaments, such as those the State Department proposed in October 1953, were not amenable to presentation in a presidential address but would require months, if not years, of secret diplomatic negotiations. In autumn 1953 Eisenhower had no intention of limiting the Administration’s efforts to diplomatic channels. *?

Despite the debacle that had overtaken Operation Candor in September, Eisenhower had never abandoned the idea of speaking out on the growing dangers of nuclear warfare. Always before, the overwhelming pes-

simism of the Candor drafts had caused the President to hold back; but Strauss’s plan, which offered small but positive hope for a way out of the nuclear dilemma, now seemed to make Candor possible. A special opportunity lay in the fact that the United Nations General Assembly was then meeting in New York. A speech there would give Eisenhower a world, rather than just a national, platform.

Late in October Jackson began to assemble the ingredients for a speech before the General Assembly. From the dozen drafts of the Candor speech, he could extract the grim statistics on the nuclear arms race: the destructive capability of the United States’ nuclear stockpile compared to that of all the munitions used in World War II and the fact that the Soviet Union had the hydrogen bomb. From the State Department’s latest proposal he could borrow material that would describe the trouble spots in Europe, Korea, and Southeast Asia that were breeding grounds for new global con-

flicts. From Strauss’s paper he could extract the proposal for a positive contribution to world peace. The essential structure and tone of the speech were fixed on November 6 when Jackson read his second draft aloud to the President, Strauss, and United Nations Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, but revisions contin-

ued apace. The fifth draft completed on November 28 barely survived a sustained attack by Secretary of Defense Wilson and his deputy, Roger M.

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

Kyes. Undaunted, Jackson immediately began work on a sixth draft, which he expected to have ready in a few days.*®

THE BORDEN LETTER

Although both Strauss and Nichols would have been happy to see Oppenheimer excluded from national security information, neither man wanted to precipitate that action in a way that would damage the atomic energy program or their own effectiveness as government officials. They had bided

their time too long on the Oppenheimer case to take any rash or ill-

four men. 67 considered action. Yet, within a week after Nichols took over as general manager, William Borden, most likely without contacting either Strauss or Nichols, dispatched to the FBI a letter destined to change the lives of all

On November 12, Lou B. Nichols, an FBI official in Washington, received a letter addressed to J. Edgar Hoover from Borden, whom he had known as executive director of the Joint Committee. After reviewing the extraordinary scope of Oppenheimer’s activities in national security affairs since World War II, Borden concluded that Oppenheimer was and for some years had been “in a position to compromise more vital and detailed information affecting the national defense and security than any other individual in the United States.” As chairman or as a member of “more than thirtyfive important Government committees, panels, study groups, and projects, he [had] oriented and dominated key policies involving every principal United States security department and agency except the FBI.” Then without so much as a sentence of transition, Borden went to the purpose of his letter: “to state my own exhaustively considered opinion, based on years of study of the available classified evidence, that more probably than not J. ROBERT OPPENHEIMER is an agent of the Soviet Union.” * Borden’s charges were so serious that they could not be ignored, but Agent Nichols and his associates at the FBI received the letter with some skepticism. Why had Borden waited so long after leaving the Joint Com-

mittee to make his charges? Did he really have some evidence against Oppenheimer, or was he merely trying to put his worst fears on the record? Borden had not backed up his letter with any solid evidence of Oppenhei-

mer’s alleged treason but merely summarized in single sentences some twenty instances purporting to show Oppenheimer’s ties with communists. The FBI staff noted that Borden’s allegations followed the FBI summary of Oppenheimer’s file, “except Borden has included his own interpretations and conclusions, which are not factual in every instance.” Because Borden’s reliability was in doubt, the FBI staff proposed to Hoover that he send a special agent to Pittsburgh to interview Borden to determine whether he had any concrete evidence. In the meantime the FBI wanted to keep Bor-

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

den’s letter from leaking to Oppenheimer or the press, but the FBI felt compelled to warn all departments and agencies that had granted Oppenheimer access to classified information. Painstaking review of the draft within the FBI delayed dispatch of the letter until November 27.*°

BORDEN AND MCCARTHY

Concurrent events explained the extreme sensitivity that the FBI exercised

in handling the Borden letter. On November 6, the day before Borden mailed his letter, Herbert M. Brownell, Jr., Eisenhower’s Attorney General, accused former President Truman of nominating Harry Dexter White to be director of the International Monetary Fund despite the fact that he knew White had been a communist spy. Thereafter Truman went on nation-

68 wide radio and television to defend himself, accusing Brownell and the Eisenhower Administration in turn of “McCarthyism.” As the issue of McCarthyism boiled up in the nation’s press, Murray became increasingly concerned about Strauss’s growing tendency to immerse himself in security matters. As he told J. Edgar Hoover on November

23, he was shocked that Strauss had employed as his special assistant David S. Teeple, a former aide to Senator Hickenlooper and former security investigator for the Manhattan Project, a man known around Washington for his excessive zeal in security matters. Teeple, at Strauss’s behest, was reportedly digging around in old files and launching “many investigations into things that had happened in the past.” Murray asked Hoover whether the FBI had given Strauss any information that had caused him to employ Teeple and step up security activities. At first Hoover could think of noth-

ing out of the ordinary, but then he recalled somewhat nonchalantly the Oppenheimer case. He mentioned to Murray his efforts during spring 1953 to head off Senator McCarthy and his special investigator, Roy Cohn; Hoover was convinced that McCarthy had been successfully contained. Almost as an afterthought, Hoover mentioned the Borden letter. Hoover could not

explain why Borden had written the letter, but he supposed that Borden “had a lot of these things on his mind and decided more or less to dump them into the lap of the FBI.” Giving Murray no indication he was particularly alarmed by the Borden letter, Hoover promised to send Murray copies of all important FBI communications with the Commission, including special reports to the chairman and a copy of the Borden letter. * Hoover was correct in asserting that he had steered McCarthy away

from the Oppenheimer case. On the day after Murray’s visit to the FBI, McCarthy demanded and received equal time over radio and television to respond to Truman. According to C. D. Jackson, McCarthy’s sensational speech, aside from announcing an open season on lambasting Truman, openly “declared war on Eisenhower.”®’ While the Borden letter was still

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

in FBI channels, Eisenhower and his staff at the White House discussed the President’s response to McCarthy. C. D. Jackson and others in the Administration argued that appeasing McCarthy would wreck the Republican party and lead it to defeat in 1954 and 1956. Eisenhower, however, was adamant; on December 2 he declared he would not “get in the gutter” with McCarthy. 8

On that same day Hoover began to receive responses to his memorandum forwarding the Borden letter and the Oppenheimer summary to the White House and the heads of seven departments and agencies. The first to call was Secretary of Defense Wilson, who was “shocked” by the news. He recalled the Wheeler incident and wondered whether Oppenheimer might have been involved with Wheeler in the loss of the top secret document. Wilson had already talked to Brownell and Strauss, who had said he did not know whether Oppenheimer was a communist but he knew that the

scientist was a “liar.” Wilson wanted to be certain that Oppenheimer was 69 cut off from any access to classified defense information. Hoover suggested that Wilson consult General Cutler at the White House and Strauss before taking any formal action. Hoover also reminded Wilson that the FBI had not yet interviewed Borden about his letter.°? Apparently dissatisfied with Hoover’s cautious approach, Wilson called Eisenhower directly. Because Cutler had not yet brought the matter to the President’s attention, Eisenhower did not at first know what Wilson

was talking about. But as the Secretary proceeded to describe the FBI summary of the Oppenheimer case and the charges in the Borden letter, which both he and Strauss had received, the President became greatly concerned. “Jolted” by the news about Oppenheimer, Eisenhower bravely pro-

fessed not to be worried about the McCarthy threat, but his subsequent action that day showed that he did not take the matter lightly.” The President sent immediately for Strauss, who found Cutler and others gathered in the Oval Office when he arrived at the White House. The President was determined to act quickly, but he wanted to check first with Attorney General Brownell to make certain that the evidence against Oppenheimer was solid. The next morning, before the meeting of the National Security Coun-

cil, Eisenhower met with Wilson, Strauss, Under Secretary of Defense Kyes, and Cutler to decide what should be done. Still deeply troubled, the President directed that, pending further investigation, “a blank wall” should be placed between Oppenheimer and any sensitive or classified information.”

Just how that “blank wall” was to be constructed the President allowed Strauss and others to decide. The most obvious measure was to revoke Oppenheimer’s clearance for atomic energy information, a step Strauss immediately explored. Hoover saw two dangers in this approach. First, he worried that Oppenheimer, then traveling in Europe, might defect to the Soviet Union if he learned of the action against him before he re-

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

turned to the United States. Second, Hoover warned that lifting Oppenheimer’s clearance would give him the opportunity to request a public hearing. Unless the evidence against Oppenheimer was convincing, Hoover feared that he might use clever lawyers to vindicate himself and “then a martyr would have been made of an individual who we know morally is a security

risk.” Much of the evidence against Oppenheimer, Hoover contended, could not be introduced in a public hearing without revealing confidential sources. Furthermore, Hoover was not at all confident of Borden’s reliability. He had dispatched an FBI agent to Pittsburgh to interview Borden that evening; unless Borden had some solid evidence against Oppenheimer, Hoover was not sure that the government would have a good case.” Hoover much preferred the alternative of disbanding the one government committee of which Oppenheimer was still a member (in the Office of

Defense Mobilization) so that his clearance would automatically lapse.

70 Abolishing that committee, however, was found impractical, and Strauss noted that merely allowing the clearance to lapse would not be sufficient to

cut Oppenheimer’s many lines of communication with scientists in the atomic energy establishment. In fact, Strauss on the afternoon of December 3 considered notifying the directors of all the Commission’s laboratories that Oppenheimer’s clearance had been suspended. But both LaPlante and Hoover warned Strauss that such a directive would likely leak to Oppenheimer, who might then decide to defect. Thus, Strauss decided to revoke the clearance but to issue no instructions to the field and to delay informing Oppenheimer until he returned to the United States on December 13. Running through all these discussions on December 3 was the pressure to act quickly. As Cutler told Strauss, “he wanted a record established of very prompt action.” °* Such a record would presumably protect the President in any subsequent investigation by McCarthy, and the best way to take prompt action was to suspend Oppenheimer’s clearance. As Nichols astutely observed, there was an important coincidence between the Harry Dexter White—McCarthy incident and the Oppenheimer case.°* Indeed, McCarthy had forced the President’s hand in dealing with Oppenheimer, but not for the reasons generally assumed. Eisenhower had little reason to fear that McCarthy would exploit the Oppenheimer case, but, in the atmosphere created by Brownell’s charges against Truman and then McCarthy’s accusations against the Administration, Eisenhower knew that he faced a crisis of confidence with his immediate staff. McCarthy had presented the inexperienced President a delicate political problem to which he instinctively responded with caution approaching timidity. The Oppenheimer case, however, lay in the familiar area of national security where, cloaked in secrecy, the former general could react with the same kind of dramatic swiftness that he had demonstrated in the Wheeler affair. In short, with Dulles, Jackson, and others worried about presidential leadership, it

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

was almost inevitable that Eisenhower would respond boldly to Borden’s challenge.

Strauss may have been correct when he said that the President wanted to get rid of Oppenheimer. But as Eisenhower wrote in Mandate for

Change, the charges against Oppenheimer “were brought not by an unknown citizen,” but by Borden, who had directed the Joint Committee staff “under the preceding Democratic administration, and who obviously was aware of the gravity of his charges.” Under the circumstances, which in-

cluded the fact that the President was due to leave for an international conference in Bermuda, Eisenhower had few alternatives. There was no time for a calm and leisurely deliberation. Finally, because Eisenhower had no direct knowledge of the Oppenheimer file except through Hoover's report and no authority to revoke the physicist’s clearance by presidential order, he could only suspend Oppenheimer’s access to classified informa-

tion pending a hearing by the Atomic Energy Commission. Thus, almost “1 before anyone knew it, events had advanced to the point where few viable options were left.*°

ATOMS FOR PEACE

On the morning of December 3, 1953, before the meeting of the National Security Council that decided Oppenheimer’s fate, the President reviewed C. D. Jackson’s sixth draft of the United Nations speech with Strauss, Wilson, Dulles, and Kyes. Jackson later wrote that Wilson was “still mumbling around in his cave,” but Kyes had reversed himself after his bitter attack on November 30. The session resulted in a few more changes that Jackson managed to complete later that day.”° Eisenhower probably would have addressed the General Assembly in November had it not been for the Bermuda conference with Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Premier Joseph Laniel of France. Because the

British and French leaders had not been told of the plan, the President decided not to seek an invitation from the United Nations until he had arrived in Bermuda. Strauss explained his proposal for a nuclear pool to Lord Cherwell, Churchill’s scientific adviser. Although Cherwell predicted that the pool would be difficult to establish, he agreed to support the plan. Churchill, who had already read the speech, then approved it with only a few suggestions for minor changes, which Eisenhower accepted. ”’

Arrangements had been made for the presidential party to fly directly from Bermuda to New York, where Eisenhower was to address the General Assembly on December 8. As soon as the President boarded the plane, he called Dulles, Strauss, Jackson, and James Hagerty, his press secretary, to his cabin and began to edit the speech line by line. As each

THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOMB

page was completed, it was retyped on stencils and reproduced on a mim-

eograph machine in the rear luggage compartment. As the plane approached La Guardia Field, Dulles, Strauss, and others helped to staple copies that would be distributed at the United Nations.” As Eisenhower mounted the rostrum at the General Assembly that December afternoon, he was realizing a hope he had been pursuing since the first weeks of his Administration—to arrest and, if possible, reduce the growing danger of a world holocaust made possible by the development of fission and thermonuclear weapons. The United States proposed that the nuclear nations “begin now and continue to make joint contributions from their stockpiles of normal uranium and fissionable materials to an International Atomic Energy Agency” to be established under the aegis of the United Nations.” In nine weeks the President had moved far beyond Strauss’s pro-

72 posal for an international pool of fissionable material. Instead of isolating the material in underground tanks, Eisenhower was now proposing to use it to develop power for peaceful purposes. “Who can doubt,” the President asked, “if the entire body of the world’s scientists and engineers had adequate amounts of fissionable material . . . , that this capability would rapidly be transformed into universal, efficient, and economic usage.” Nuclear power itself was to save the world from nuclear devastation. Balancing the nuclear threat with nuclear power was an idea that Eisenhower seemed to have vaguely in mind in his very first comments to Snapp in Augusta more than a year before. The idea’s simplicity and directness were appealing. It electrified the United Nations General Assembly and the world as few political statements had done since Bernard Baruch’s address in June 1946.'* But in the very simplicity of the idea lay its limitations. Could atomic energy, which had heightened world tensions and distrust, now become a unifying force for peace? And was nuclear power as imminent as the President seemed to think? These were questions the Atomic Energy Commission would have to answer.

CHAPTER 4

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

When Lewis Strauss returned to Washington on December 8, 1953, following the President’s speech at the United Nations, he plunged back into the Oppenheimer case. Because Oppenheimer’s only significant access to classified information was through his consultant contract with the Commission, Strauss knew that he and his fellow Commissioners would have to under-

take on behalf of the government whatever formal action was brought against Oppenheimer. The extreme sensitivity of atomic energy information had prompted the Commission to develop detailed procedures for handling

personnel security cases. Since 1947 these procedures had been tested in numerous cases and had come to be regarded by many security experts as a model that other government agencies might well follow.' In two respects, however, the Commission’s security procedures were not well designed for the impending Oppenheimer case: they had been used almost exclusively at the Commission’s field offices rather than at headquarters, and they had never been applied to a person of Oppenheimer’s prestige and influence.

TROUBLE AT HOME

Strauss’s first priority was to set things right with his fellow Commissioners,

who knew only that the President had ordered Oppenheimer’s clearance suspended. During the hectic hours on December 3, when Strauss was trying both to respond to the President’s order and to prepare for the Bermuda conference, there had been no opportunity for a Commission meeting. Although Smyth had technically served as acting chairman during Strauss’s absence in Bermuda, he had been bedridden with a sinus infection and sore throat during that week and had the benefit of only one brief

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

and guarded telephone conversation with Strauss before the chairman’s departure. To bring the Commission up-to-date, Strauss scheduled an executive session for December 10.? Murray was the only Commissioner who had already responded to the events of the previous week. While Strauss was in Bermuda, Murray

completed a memorandum that set forth his views on the Oppenheimer case. Reminding Strauss that he had known of Oppenheimer’s record since joining the Commission, Murray wanted to make clear that he had not been ignorant of or complacent about the matter. But it had been his understanding that Oppenheimer’s record “was not sufficiently derogatory to call for stopping his access to restricted data.”? Nevertheless, after reviewing Oppenheimer’s “strong negative position” on the hydrogen bomb, Murray believed that the physicist’s usefulness had been severely reduced. Murray had been especially determined to eliminate Oppenheimer’s unhealthy “ex-

74 cessive influence” over the general advisory committee and had argued in 1951 against the reappointment of Enrico Fermi to the committee in order to establish a strong precedent against Oppenheimer’s reappointment a year

later. In fact, since he also believed that the paramount interest of the country outweighed “any possible question of equity to an individual,” Murray agreed that Oppenheimer’s access to classified information should be terminated if there were “any shadow of doubt on the security of vital information accessible to Oppenheimer,” and “from a reading of the FBI report, | would like to record that I don’t reach the conclusion that Borden does.” *

Thus, Murray served Strauss notice that he, although in sympathy with the move to dump Oppenheimer, would not support the use of the security system to achieve that end. Unfortunately Murray’s voice was somewhat muted because circumstances prevented him from developing his statement fully. In a memorandum ultimately sent to Strauss, Murray confessed that for the past three years he had discussed various security mat-

ters with Hoover, who had briefed him on the Oppenheimer case. What Murray could not tell Strauss was Hoover’s earlier statement that “there was not sufficient derogatory evidence in the FBI files to call for AEC’s ending Oppenheimer’s access to restricted data,” a considerably stronger reservation than the one ultimately given to Strauss. Rejecting Murray’s statement in the draft memorandum, Hoover denied that he had ever expressed such a definite opinion and requested Murray to eliminate specific mention of their conversations about Oppenheimer, particularly those that had taken place during the Weinberg case in November 1952. After negotiating with two of Hoover’s agents, Murray agreed to amend his statement by deleting “the fact that Mr. Hoover expressed any opinions about Oppenheimer,” but he retained reference to his special knowledge of the Oppenheimer case.°

Originally Murray intended to recommend that the Oppenheimer

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

case be referred to the special committee on atomic energy of the National Security Council, a maneuver that would obviously diminish Strauss’s role in any future proceedings against Oppenheimer. Without success Murray sought support for his proposal from Smyth and Zuckert, the other Truman appointees to the Commission. The three men convened prior to the December 10 executive session; Murray read his memo but failed to receive the approval of either colleague. Without promising their support or disagreeing with Murray, they left the whole matter in limbo. At the moment another issue seemed even more important than the Oppenheimer case.

They had just learned that Strauss had been working on Eisenhower's Atoms-for-Peace speech without their knowledge. This information not only

damaged their pride but also suggested that Strauss was usurping their functions as Commissioners. Thus the “Bermuda crisis,” as they called it, loomed as large as the Oppenheimer case itself. Just before the three Com-

missioners entered the executive meeting, Smyth and Zuckert both spoke Vo openly of resigning.° From the outset the Oppenheimer case threatened to become a par-

tisan issue. Joseph Campbell, Eisenhower’s other Republican appointee, was the only Commissioner with whom Strauss really confided on December 3. Campbell met Strauss at the airport on December 8 and accompanied by

two aides drove to Strauss’s apartment at the Shoreham to brief the chairman. Strauss told Campbell that he had an appointment the morning of December 9 to discuss the Oppenheimer case with the President, Brownell, and Authur 5. Flemming, director of the Office of Defense Mobilization. Strauss met again with Brownell and Flemming at the Department of Justice the following day after the conclusion of the National Security Council meeting. ’

Strauss opened the executive session on December 10 by reviewing the events of December 3 but omitting his meeting with the President. On receiving the President’s directive, Strauss explained, he had immediately called a meeting of the Commission, which had been attended only by Campbell. The chairman did not tell them that he had met with Flemming and Brownell, but he did note that he intended to consult with Brownell. There were no objections. Then Strauss took cognizance of Murray’s independent contacts with Hoover by announcing that he intended to ask Hoover to keep all the Commissioners advised.*®

THE STATEMENT OF CHARGES

The first step in a personnel security investigation was to prepare a statement of charges. Usually a field office attorney performed this task, but, because of the exceptional nature of the Oppenheimer case, Strauss asked William Mitchell, the Commission’s general counsel, to draw up the state-

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

ment himself. Mitchell, fifty years old, had been educated at Princeton and Harvard and had practiced law in Minnesota and the District of Columbia.

His service in the Army Air Force during World War II had led to his appointment in the Truman Administration as special representative of the

President to negotiate civil air transport agreements with several Latin American countries and as special assistant to the Secretary of the Air Force on overseas bases. As the son of Herbert Hoover's attorney general, however, Mitchell’s credentials as a conservative Republican were impeccable. Mitchell’s quiet and judicious manner and his unquestioned integrity made him an effective legal adviser to Strauss. Although Mitchell had broad experience as a lawyer in both private practice and government, he had never before been directly involved in preparing a security case. After several unsuccessful attempts to draft the statement of charges himself, Mitchell obtained Strauss’s permission to give

76 the assignment to Harold P. Green, a young lawyer who had worked in the general counsel’s office for three years. Green had never read the Oppenheimer file, but he had learned something of Oppenheimer’s “checkered past” as an official observer at the Weinberg trial. On Friday afternoon, December 11, Mitchell gave Green two thick volumes of the Oppenheimer file and a copy of the Borden letter. Mitchell explained the background of the “blank wall” directive and the need for secrecy. He asked Green to prepare a statement of charges against Oppenheimer that weekend.? Green was given few instructions except that he was not to focus on Borden’s allegations concerning Oppenheimer’s opposition to the hydrogen

bomb. Green knew from the outset that he was involved in a matter of historic proportions, but he did not suspect that the Oppenheimer case would be handled any differently from routine personnel security reviews conducted by the Commission. Arriving at the Commission at 6:00 a.m. on Saturday, Green began his systematic review of Oppenheimer’s file, only to be interrupted twice by Commission General Manager Nichols, who summoned him to his office to talk about the case.'° Well aware that under Commission regulations Nichols would probably make the final decision about Oppenheimer’s fate, Green was disconcerted by Nichols’s apparent enthusiasm for the prosecution and the seeming impropriety of taking a position against Oppenheimer’s interests. Green worked steadily throughout the day, reading the FBI files that contained a monotonous rehash of ancient events and stale investigations. '! The only fresh information of any interest consisted of recent interviews with Teller and Kenneth W. Pitzer, who criticized Oppenheimer for his opposition to the hydrogen bomb; but this material was outside the scope of Mitchell’s vaguely defined guidelines. Unable to identify substantial grounds for challenging Oppenheimer’s loyalty, Green decided to take a tack common to personnel security cases: to draft charges primarily designed to test Oppenheimer’s veracity. Green had no qualms about his

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

strategy. Confident that an experienced and eminent board would review the charges, he selected thirty-one items from the file, almost all of which would allow the prospective board to match Oppenheimer’s memory and truthfulness against known and established facts. When Green finally finished his draft statement of charges at noon on Sunday, he called Mitchell, who wanted to review the draft before submitting it to Strauss, Nichols, and Hoover for concurrence. Thereafter followed what has been described as the “most crucial two-hour period in the entire Oppenheimer affair.”'? Green, waiting alone at the Commission, mulled over his work, becoming increasingly dissatisfied with ignoring the FBI interviews of Teller and Pitzer. Oppenheimer should not be punished because of his opposition to the hydrogen bomb, Green understood, but could not his alleged disingenuousness on the hydrogen bomb issue serve as a pertinent and more timely basis for testing his veracity? With nothing

else to do, Green decided to cast several additional charges based on the 77 material found in the unused FBI interviews. Concentrating on the Teller interview, which he found most useful, Green added seven more charges.

Teller himself, as the FBI interview made unmistakably clear, did not doubt Oppenheimer’s loyalty and thought it wrong to remove him from any office on the grounds of disloyalty. Nevertheless, Teller hoped that Oppenheimer would be removed from all responsibilities connected with military preparedness because of the mistaken advice he had given in recent years. Using the same words as Borden, Teller accused Oppenheimer of “white-

washing” the record of the general advisory committee in an attempt to show that, once the weapon had become an inevitability, the committee had favored its development all along. Here was sufficient grist for Green’s

veracity mill. When he was done, Green had extended the charges from thirty-one to thirty-eight, producing by coincidence, perhaps, seven Hbomb charges, the same number that Borden had included in his November 7 letter to Hoover. * Satisfied with his draft at last, Green relinquished the manuscript to

Mitchell, who made no changes and offered no objections to the paper, including the hydrogen bomb allegations. The next morning Mitchell sent the draft to Nichols, who forwarded it to Hoover without comment. The FBI carefully checked Green’s work for accuracy, making certain that its files confirmed all the charges. Hoover subsequently recommended that two charges be dropped entirely and eleven others be amended either to correct misspellings and incorrect data or to eliminate accusations that could not be substantiated by available witnesses. Hoover mostly confined himself to editorial chores, avoiding substantive comment on the hydrogen bomb charges and the other allegations. '* It is tempting to conclude that the hydrogen bomb charges were included in the statement almost as an afterthought and inexplicably were endorsed by the Commission virtually unnoticed and unchallenged. Unfor-

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

tunately including the H-bomb charges was far less accidental than it seemed on the surface. Mitchell had not told Green that he had given up the assignment after Smyth and Zuckert had criticized his attempts to include the H-bomb charges. In fact, all the Commissioners except Campbell had strong opinions on this question, and Smyth had relented on December 14 only with great reluctance. '®

THE MEETING WITH OPPENHEIMER

Strauss kept the President fully informed of developments in the case and solicited advice from Eisenhower in turn. Oppenheimer’s request for an appointment with Strauss precipitated the issue, and in the President’s office they decided that Strauss should see Oppenheimer, tell him about the

78 President’s directive, and give Oppenheimer a chance to resign; should he decide to carry his case further, Strauss could hand him the statement of charges and offer him the regular hearing procedure. Thus, when Strauss convened an executive session on the afternoon of December 15, the Commission was presented with another fait accompli: this time presidential concurrence in procedures the Commission itself had not yet approved. '° Although Smyth and Murray knew that they could not oppose actions approved by the President, both had deep reservations about the decision. Smyth believed that a formal suspension of clearance would not only be a severe blow to Oppenheimer’s reputation but would also tend to prejudice the evidence. There was some chance, in Smyth’s opinion, that Oppenheimer’s consultant contract could be terminated without raising the clearance

question, but Smyth finally decided not to press his objections with his fellow Commissioners because he feared that the case might become a political football in the hands of McCarthy. Murray shared a similar concern after he had met privately with Joint Committee on Atomic Energy security officer Francis Cotter, who told him that he knew all about the Oppenheimer case and Borden’s role in it. Cotter urged that the Commission consider

using a specially appointed presidential panel to hear the Oppenheimer case, and he intimated that Joint Committee Chairman Cole would support such a move. A few days later Herbert S. Marks, a former general counsel

at the Commission, insisted on seeing Strauss to warn him that Senator William Jenner was considering an investigation of Oppenheimer.'’ None of these developments would make it any easier for the Commission to drop the case. When Oppenheimer kept his appointment with Strauss on December

21, the chairman explained to him that the Commission faced a difficult problem in continuing his clearance. Without naming Borden, the chairman told Oppenheimer how a former government official had called atten-

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

tion to Oppenheimer’s record, an action that resulted in an FBI report to the President, who had directed the Commission to subject Oppenheimer’s clearance to a formal hearing pursuant to the President’s recent executive order. Strauss explained that the first step would be to suspend Oppenheimer’s clearance by giving him a letter from the general manager informing the scientist of his rights and the nature of the derogatory information occasioning the suspension of his clearance.'® Handing Oppenheimer a draft of the letter, Strauss and Nichols waited tensely while Oppenheimer read the charges. Obviously impressed and shaken by the evidence accumulated against him, Oppenheimer inquired whether a board had ever cleared anyone with a similar record. Strauss conceded that he did not believe a comparable case had ever been heard before and could not venture an opinion on the probable outcome. Oppenheimer’s resignation was an obvious alternative to a formal

hearing, and the two men discussed that option at some length.'? It became 79 evident to Oppenheimer that Strauss believed a simple resignation was the

better course to follow, but Strauss stopped short of making an outright recommendation. Sensitive to possible future accusations that he and Nichols had used “star chamber” tactics on Oppenheimer, Strauss was careful not to force Oppenheimer into any prescribed course of action. At first reflection Oppenheimer was inclined to offer his resignation, a move that might have ended the matter then and there; but the more he thought about the specter of the Jenner committee investigation, the more he became troubled by the prospect of resigning his consultantship prior to the putative investigation by the Congressional committee. To quit without a fuss, as Strauss plainly wanted him to do, would also be interpreted as evidence of guilt whenever the President’s order and the Commission’s unsigned charges were brought to light, as they surely would be. When Oppenheimer asked how much time he had to think the matter over, Strauss replied that, because implementing the President’s order had already been delayed nearly three weeks, he could only give the scientist

until the next day to make up his mind. Nevertheless, Oppenheimer thanked Strauss for his consideration and indicated he would consult with Marks. Desiring to study the statement of charges carefully with his lawyer before coming to a decision, Oppenheimer asked if he could take a copy of Nichols’s letter with him. Strauss refused the request on the grounds that it would be unwise to circulate the unsigned letter, but he promised to dispatch the statement of charges immediately should Oppenheimer choose to go through the normal hearing procedure rather than request termination of his contract. Oppenheimer apparently had had no intimation of the government’s proposed action before he walked into Strauss’s office, and the shock of his experience was evident as he rose to leave. He regretted, the scien-

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

tist remarked to Strauss, that he had to sever his relationship with the government under either alternative, but he understood that given the circumstances the Commission had little recourse but to offer him the two painful choices. As Oppenheimer prepared to leave, Strauss told him about Marks’s visit earlier that morning. When Oppenheimer indicated he would like to consult Marks immediately, Strauss lent the scientist his car so that he could drive directly to Marks’s office. It was 3:35 p.m.; the entire meeting had lasted only slightly more than thirty minutes. 7°

That evening Oppenheimer met briefly with Marks and another friend, former General Counsel Joseph A. Volpe, Jr., before returning to Princeton by train. Shortly after noon the next day Nichols called Oppenheimer in Princeton to ask whether he had reached a decision. Oppenheimer had not had time to recover from the blow of the previous day’s meeting, much less give very much thought to the decision, but Nichols insisted

80 upon an answer that afternoon. Under this pressure Oppenheimer decided to return at once to Washington, and he spent the evening in Volpe’s office discussing the strategy of a reply. Volpe, experienced in the ways of the bureaucracy, urged Oppenheimer to seek an accommodation with the Commission: Oppenheimer would quit if the Commission accepted his resignation without prejudice, that is, on the basis that his services were no longer

needed without mentioning the security aspect. But cold reflection reminded them that neither the Borden letter nor the Commission’s statement of charges would disappear. From Oppenheimer’s point of view, it was one thing to resign under pressure when one’s services were no longer wanted or needed but quite another to be forced out by the security system, sacrificing both integrity and honor while leaving the charges unchallenged. He decided to accept the Commission’s statement of charges with all the risks and uncertainties it entailed.?! Even before Oppenheimer accepted the statement of charges, Strauss inquired whether the FBI could set up a “full-time surveillance” of Oppenheimer, which would have required agents to monitor Oppenheimer’s every

movement and contact around the clock. Hoover objected that such an operation would be too costly in manpower and money, but he did order the FBI office in Newark, New Jersey, to maintain a “spot check” on Oppenheimer. This meant assigning two agents to follow Oppenheimer and mem-

bers of his family when they left his residence and to observe visitors. Hoover also authorized taps on Oppenheimer’s home and office telephones; these were installed on January 1, 1954. The Newark office reported that

the taps made the spot check quite efficient and permitted the FBI to plan surveillance operations when Oppenheimer indicated that he planned

travel outside the Princeton area. Thus, after January | the only privacy accorded Oppenheimer by the FBI were conversations within his own

home.

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

A STRATEGY FOR DEFENSE

Buoyed up and encouraged by his friends, Oppenheimer set about after the New Year to obtain competent legal assistance in his confrontation with the Commission. Far from complacent about his situation, Oppenheimer would have been even more concerned had he known that Strauss, Nichols, and Mitchell were privy to his every move in selecting counsel. When the FBI agent in Newark first began to pick up conversations about legal matters, he called his supervisors in Washington to ask whether the tap should be continued “in view of the fact that it might disclose attorney-client relations.” He was assured that the tap was appropriate because Oppenheimer was involved in a security case, not a criminal action; moreover, the FBI’s chief concern, the agent was informed, was to learn immediately of any indication that Oppenheimer was planning to flee the country. Under the

circumstances the surveillance was “warranted.” Strauss in turn reassured 31 Bates that the surveillance was “most helpful” to the Commission in that “they were aware beforehand of the moves he [Oppenheimer] was contemplating.” Strauss confided to both Bates and Mitchell that the importance of the case “could not be stressed too much.” If the Commission lost the case against Oppenheimer, Strauss thought that the atomic energy program would fall into the hands of “left-wingers” and the scientists would take over the whole program. Strauss warned that if Oppenheimer were cleared,

then “anyone” could be cleared regardless of the information against them.”°

The FBI office in Newark provided Strauss and Mitchell with almost daily reports on Oppenheimer’s efforts to find counsel. Volpe advised Oppenheimer to find a tough trial lawyer experienced in the rough and tumble

of courtroom cross-examination; but selection of appropriate, able, and available counsel on short notice was a difficult task. It took Oppenheimer

almost two weeks, with Marks’s help, to assemble his legal staff. His chief counsel would be Lloyd K. Garrison, a New York attorney whom Oppenheimer knew as a member of the board of trustees of the Institute for

Advanced Study. Garrison offered Oppenheimer legal distinction wellmatched to the physicist’s scientific reputation. Like Oppenheimer, Garri-

son was also drawn to liberal causes and had served as president of the National Urban League and as a member of the American Civil Liberties Union. Described as “Lincolnesque in appearance” and “mild of manner,” Garrison seemed an excellent complement to Oppenheimer, both temperamentally and intellectually. Assisting Garrison were Marks and Samuel J. Silverman, an attorney in Garrison’s law firm.”* Shortly after accepting the assignment as Oppenheimer’s chief coun-

sel, Garrison realized that he would need a security clearance. Not only would Oppenheimer’s FBI files and materials relating to the hydrogen bomb

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

be denied him without a clearance, but Garrison feared he could not even talk freely with his client without compromising classified information. Garrison’s application for clearance for himself, Marks, and Silverman gave Nichols some concern. Although the FBI had no substantially derogatory information on Silverman or Garrison, there had been several allegations going back many years against Marks. Much material in Marks’s file

was hearsay, vicious, and unverified, but it seemed serious enough to preclude a quick reinstatement of Marks’s clearance without a full background investigation. There was a real danger that the Commission might

become involved in a personnel security hearing for Marks as well as Oppenheimer. ?”°

Trying to be as diplomatic as possible, Nichols suggested limiting clearance to Garrison alone on the grounds that one clearance would be sufficient for handling Oppenheimer’s case. After considering the question

B2 for several days, Garrison decided that he would not request a clearance for either himself or his associates but would present the case as best he could on the basis of unclassified evidence. Nichols had no choice but to accept Garrison’s decision, but he told Garrison he had made a serious mistake. Nichols assured Garrison that he would try to declassify all documents relevant to the case, but Garrison’s decision left him standing with Oppenheimer outside Eisenhower’s “blank wall” of security.”°

During the third week of January 1954, Garrison and others explored with Nichols and Strauss a variety of procedures that might have avoided a formal hearing. In every case Strauss was careful not to appear to be forcing Oppenheimer’s hand, but with good reason he could not promise that the proposed alternatives would save Oppenheimer from later embarrassment.”’ In fact, when Garrison and his colleagues had thought better of their own suggestions, Strauss offered Garrison an idea of his own. It was

always possible for Oppenheimer, as it would be for any respondent, to terminate his contract, thus removing the “need to know” and making further proceedings unnecessary. In this connection, if the Commission had Oppenheimer’s letter of resignation in hand, Strauss would try to reinstate the scientist’s clearance temporarily before the resignation was accepted and, against his better judgment, withdraw the letter of charges before accepting the resignation. Again Strauss could offer no absolute guarantees, especially against Congressional hearings or publicity attendant to the case, but his solution would have allowed Oppenheimer to save some face, avoid a hearing, and minimize the impact of his troubles on the Commission’s program.

Given the pendency of the hearings, Garrison doubted whether it would be possible for Oppenheimer to tender his resignation without appearing to concede the substance of the charges, even if they were withdrawn. Marks suggested that Oppenheimer’s clearance could be reinstated

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

and the proceedings dropped, allowing the physicist’s contract to expire on June 30, 1954; but in view of the President’s orders it was not possible for

the Commission to do this. As they parted, the lawyers indicated they would discuss the matter with Oppenheimer while Strauss reported the ne-

gotiations to the full Commission. At the end of the day, Garrison and Marks returned to report bad news; they had spent the afternoon discussing alternatives with Oppenheimer, and the scientist had decided it was necessary to go through with the hearing.” The negotiations having failed, both sides had no choice but to continue their preparations for a hearing.

THE SECURITY BOARD

Because the Washington headquarters did not have a regularly constituted

personnel security board as did the Commission’s operations offices, it was 83 necessary either to bring in a board from the field or to appoint an ad hoc board for the sole purpose of judging the evidence against Oppenheimer. It was also apparent to Commission officials that should Oppenheimer de-

mand a hearing, no ordinary panel would be competent to review the case. Thus, after conducting an exhaustive field survey, General Counsel Mitchell recommended the ad hoc board. Mitchell suggested the Commission recruit a board of tough but honest men who were Oppenheimer’s peers; if possible the board should be composed of a lawyer, a university scientist, and an individual with a national reputation in private life. It was also desirable, Mitchell noted, to have at least one Republican and one Democrat on the board.” Gordon Gray was the Commission’s choice to head the board. From a wealthy and prominent North Carolina family, Gray brought to the board

a stature that easily matched Oppenheimer’s. A graduate of Yale Law School, Gray had practiced law in New York, had become a publisher in North Carolina, and had been active in state politics. After serving in the Army during World War II, he became Assistant Secretary of the Army in 1947 and had served as a presidential assistant until he was elected president of the University of North Carolina in 1950. Gray was the only member of the board to be recruited personally by Strauss. The staff recommended the second member, Ward V. Evans, a professor of chemistry at Loyola University in Chicago. Evans had earned a reputation as a conscientious member of security review boards appointed by the Chicago operations office. He scarcely matched Oppenheimer in scientific reputation, but he was a respected teacher. To balance Evans, a conservative Republican, the Commission hoped to find another Democrat so that the board would not seem stacked against Oppenheimer. After at least four candidates refused the position, Mitchell secured the consent of

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

industrialist Thomas A. Morgan of New York. The son of a North Carolina

farmer, Morgan had worked his way up through the trades to become a naval technician during World War I. His ability to repair gyrocompasses eared him a position with the Sperry Gyroscope Company after the war, and he became president of the company in 1933 at the age of forty-six. In 1949 he had served in the Truman Administration as an adviser on management Improvement. Although neither Oppenheimer nor Garrison expressed any dissat-

isfaction with the Commission’s choices for the board, the selection of Roger Robb as counsel for the board proved one of the Commission’s most controversial decisions. First, the selection of an attorney from outside the general counsel’s staff to assist the board in a personnel security matter was

unprecedented, representing another clear departure from the Commission’s normal procedures. But that fact alone would not have raised ques34 tions were it not for Robb’s perception of his task. In contrast to Garrison, whose experiences in labor arbitration had taught him the arts of compromise and conciliation, Robb had earned distinction as a prosecutor during his seven years as Assistant United States Attorney in Washington between

1931 and 1938. Thereafter in private practice he developed a local reputation for being a combative and resourceful trial lawyer. Like Gray, Robb was first approached personally by Strauss. When

the Commission decided to seek outside assistance in the Oppenheimer case, Strauss obtained Robb’s name from Deputy Attorney General William P. Rogers. Robb’s selection as the personnel security board’s counsel was later interpreted as evidence of Strauss’s determination to “get Oppenheimer.” Strauss, Stewart and Joseph Alsop charged, “had the final responsibility for the curious decision that the AEC counsel should be Roger Robb,

a man best known as the lawyer for Senator Joseph R. McCarthy’s chief journalistic incense-swinger, Fulton Lewis, Jr.”?! Although there was no evidence that Robb was Strauss’s or the Administration’s hand-picked hatchet man, the fact that Robb was employed for his trial skills was evident even to Robb himself. Thus, Robb’s subsequent handling of the Oppenheimer case before the Gray board helped create the suspicion that he had been specifically chosen to carry out Strauss’s alleged vendetta against the scientist. *”

PREPARING FOR THE HEARINGS

Garrison’s decision to present the defense on an unclassified basis by foregoing a security clearance for himself meant that he could inspect no classified material in Oppenheimer’s file. Garrison and Marks requested the Commission to declassify certain documents entirely. These included 1946

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

FBI reports containing derogatory information about Oppenheimer, letters from leaders of the Manhattan Project, and specific Commission records on Oppenheimer’s 1947 clearance and his views on the hydrogen bomb. Nichols informed Garrison that Oppenheimer could read any classified document Oppenheimer himself had signed. If Oppenheimer came to Washington for that purpose, Nichols promised to make the documents available to him in the general manager’s office. Although there were no verbatim minutes of the Commission’s action in 1947, Mitchell was willing to stipulate for purposes of the Gray board hearings that “on August 6, 1947, the Commission recorded clearance of Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, which it noted had been authorized in February 1947.”*? But Nichols reported that the Commission was unable to go beyond that. Garrison’s disadvantage was obvious but far greater than even he suspected. The FBI had not only provided the Commission with investiga-

tive reports relative to the Borden letter and Nichols’s statement of charges, 85 but between December 22, 1953, and April 12, 1954, the first day of the Gray board hearings, the FBI sent the Commission more than 110 reports concerning Oppenheimer, of which more than 50 were transmitted as personal letters from Hoover to Strauss.** Hoover was careful not to reveal the source of his information, but it was evident even from his letters that the FBI had either bugged or wiretapped Oppenheimer’s home and office or had successfully secured an informant among Oppenheimer’s inner circle of friends and associates. As a consequence, the Commission knew of the defense lawyers’ plans and strategy, their discussions with potential witnesses for Oppenheimer, and their conferences with their client, as well as Oppenheimer’s other business, both personal and mundane.*° It is difficult to assess the influence of Hoover’s communiqués on the outcome of the Oppenheimer case, and it is not known when Hoover's letters to Strauss were added to Oppenheimer’s official file. If they were placed

in the file before the hearing, or were added during the hearing, the Gray board would have had access to them. If not, possibly the Gray board did not know of their existence. Robb probably knew about them and Nichols certainly did, as perhaps did Murray, who boasted that he received everything from Hoover that Strauss did. If the Hoover letters accomplished nothing else, they allowed the Commission to follow the progress of Oppenheimer’s preparations. During February Hoover reported in detail Oppenheimer’s telephone conversations with his brother; the activities of Garrison and Marks; a private discussion with Robert Cutler, administrative assistant to the President; and conversations of Oppenheimer’s wife’s at social events. Even more important for Robb were Hoover’s reports on Oppenheimer’s strategy and the reasons behind his selection of defense witnesses. *° On February 4, 1954, Robb settled down to study the Oppenheimer

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

file and plan his presentation to the personnel security board. Strauss and

Mitchell had explained that the hearing would not be a trial, but Robb realized that the proceedings would have many elements of a trial and prepared his case accordingly. Working steadily between eight and ten hours a day, Robb plowed through Oppenheimer’s thick Manhattan District file, which at the time was in the possession of the FBI. Although he had known virtually nothing about Oppenheimer when he accepted the assignment, Robb quickly assumed command of the case. To begin with, Robb discovered that he worked most easily with C.

Arthur Rolander, Jr., his chief assistant from the division of security, Charles Bates of the FBI, and Bryan LaPlante and David Teeple, special assistants to Chairman Strauss. Teeple was especially helpful in providing Robb concise personality profiles of all the major characters involved on both sides. Bates not only provided liaison with the FBI but also suggested

36 new aspects of the case. For the most part, however, because the matter was held in such strict secrecy, Robb and Rolander worked on the case alone.*’

Robb’s task was made difficult by the magnitude of Oppenheimer’s file, but he had help from other sources. Corbin Allardice, Borden’s suc-

cessor as executive director of the Joint Committee, offered Robb and Rolander important assistance by providing copies of relevant documents that the FBI had culled from the committee’s files. Allardice also suggested that Robb interview Borden and Teller and gave Robb a transcript of an interview in May 1950 with Teller, who deplored Oppenheimer’s impact on the hydrogen bomb project. The FBI provided Robb and Rolander with the greatest volume of information on Oppenheimer, going back to the contents of the trash from Oppenheimer’s residence at Los Alamos during World War II. Because many of these sources could not be compromised—by agreement with the FBI—much of the file was withheld from Oppenheimer and his attorneys, but not from Robb, Rolander, the Gray board, Nichols, and the Commissioners, who were to decide Oppenheimer’s fate.** By prior agreement with the FBI, Robb and Rolander agreed not to interview persons outside the Commission who had already been interviewed by the FBI; they would rely upon Bates to furnish transcripts from the FBI files. Robb insisted, however, on the right to interview employees and consultants, including scientists such as Teller, Ernest O. Lawrence, and Luis W. Alvarez, even if they had recently talked to the FBI. The only exception to this rule was Borden, neither an employee nor a Commission consultant when interviewed by Robb and Rolander on February 20, 1954. Borden expressed his opinion that “in terms of his capacity to compromise information” no other scientist was potentially more dangerous than Oppenheimer. After three and one-half hours of telling Robb and Rolander all he knew about the subject, Borden offered the investigators a list of

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

twenty-eight individuals able to furnish additional information concerning Oppenheimer’s influence on the atomic energy program.*” John Lansdale, Jr., and Boris T. Pash, both Army security officers during World War II, and General Groves freely discussed Oppenheimer’s wartime security status, offering the same opinions in private or in sworn testimony before the Gray board. Unfortunately, some academic scientists, such as Wendell M. Latimer, a professor of chemistry at the University of California, were not that consistent. Accustomed to speaking openly and freely about associates in offices, laboratories, and closed faculty meetings but circumspect and correct when discussing professional colleagues in public, Oppenheimer’s academic critics, with the exception of Teller, compiled a poor record of candor during the Gray board proceedings. Teller was fearful that the proceedings might develop into a fight that could adversely affect the nuclear program. Nevertheless, he insisted that any in-

formation supplied by him to the Commission or the FBI and used in the 87 hearing be identified with his name, not as furnished by an unidentified informant.’ Others were not so insistent. Although Ernest Lawrence did not appear before the Gray board to testify in person, his interview with Robb and Rolander was placed in the record beyond the reach of Garrison’s cross-examination. After relating the oft-told story of his own efforts to accelerate the development of the hydrogen bomb in fall 1949, Lawrence concluded that Oppenheimer was largely

responsible for the growing resistance to the project. Even worse in Lawrence’s opinion were Oppenheimer’s attempts to wreck research projects on new weapons. He concluded that Oppenheimer had become so arrogant and had been guilty of so much bad judgment that “he should never again have anything to do with the forming of policy.” ”

MCCARTHY AND THE PRESS

Late in January 1954 James Reston of the New York Times received information “from a reliable source” that the Commission had started proceedings against Oppenheimer. Unable to obtain any confirmation from either Oppenheimer or Strauss, Reston attempted to persuade both sides to re-

lease the story by playing on their mutual fears that Senator McCarthy might seize the Oppenheimer issue. Reston was in a strong position because both sides would have preferred to release the story through the relatively responsible New York Times rather than gamble on the unpredictable effects of a McCarthy disclosure. Reston told Oppenheimer that the Times would print the story eventually, but he promised to withhold publication as long as possible. The Reston threat was bound to exacerbate suspicions on both sides

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

that the other party was attempting to play politics with the case through the newspapers. The initial reaction in both camps, however, was to join forces to keep Reston quiet. To prepare for the inevitable, the Commission prepared a press release on January 29, 1954, and authorized Mitchell to alert Garrison to Reston’s intentions. Garrison acknowledged that Reston had approached Oppenheimer. Whether or not Garrison reciprocated Mitchell’s reading of the Commission’s proposed press release over the telephone, the Commission soon had a copy of Oppenheimer’s proposed state-

ment from J. Edgar Hoover.” During February Garrison continued to discuss with Strauss and Nichols the Commission’s response to press inquires. As the Army-McCarthy feud moved toward its climax, Garrison became more worried that Oppenheimer might become McCarthy’s next target. Garrison knew that McCarthy had already come across Oppenheimer’s name in another investigation. Until he received Reston’s warning, how-

88 ever, Garrison considered an investigation by the Jenner committee the greater threat. It seemed likely that the Joint Committee would rise to any challenge to its own prerogatives from Jenner, but Garrison could get no assurances from Strauss that the Commission would back the committee in such a position. *

The situation became even more dangerous on March 31 when Strauss, just back from the Pacific weapon tests, announced that the United States had developed a hydrogen bomb that could destroy an entire city. McCarthy, who had obtained time on Edward R. Murrow’s television program to reply to the newsman’s attack upon his investigating methods, used the occasion to launch an unexpected blast at the Commission’s thermonuclear program. McCarthy charged that there had been an eighteen-month delay in the project as a result of foot-dragging by communist sympathiz-

ers.“ The charge suggested to those in the atomic energy establishment that McCarthy had obtained access to Borden’s chronology. For Garrison, who knew nothing of Borden’s paper, the charge came dangerously close to Oppenheimer. Whether McCarthy had any solid information or was merely lashing out against his enemies, the attack did come just three days before

the formal hearings were to begin on April 12. It was not likely that the Oppenheimer case could be kept secret much longer. From the FBI, Strauss learned that Oppenheimer was now discussing the possibility of a news release with both the Alsop brothers and Reston. The Alsops were indignant to learn of Oppenheimer’s difficulties and were determined to write an essay exposing the government’s duplicity in “persecuting” Oppenheimer. Perhaps frightened by the Alsops’ enthusiasm, Oppenheimer seemed to prefer working with Reston, who suggested that Garrison give him, in strictest confidence, a copy of the statement of charges and Oppenheimer’s reply. Reston was to prepare a story and hold

it until it could no longer be kept secret. Garrison appreciated Reston’s forbearance as well as the value of the story breaking in an accurate article

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

by a newsman of Reston’s stature. But Garrison also knew that subsequent articles in other papers were not likely to tell the full story, and these might damage Oppenheimer’s case. Garrison was also reluctant to break his news embargo agreement with the Commission and did not want to offend the members of the Gray board before the hearings began.” At the same time both the White House and the Commission were

wary of McCarthy’s exploitation of the Oppenheimer case. In a White House meeting on April 9, 1954, Strauss told Sherman Adams and others that he had learned from the publisher of the Times that the editorial board had voted not to publish Reston’s story until the news broke elsewhere. Strauss had expressed his gratitude and had promised to alert the Times if he learned that anyone else was about to use the story. James C. Hagerty, the President’s press secretary, feared that the Eisenhower Administration might get caught in crossfire between McCarthy and Oppenheimer as each

tried to use the White House to his own advantage. To avoid that danger, 89 Hagerty suggested that Strauss withdraw his commitment to alert the Times. Then, Hagerty reasoned, the Times would run the Reston story using Gar-

rison’s documents. In so doing, the Times would undercut McCarthy and make it unnecessary for the White House to leak the story. Hagerty then assisted Strauss in drafting a press release that would be issued “on the spot” when the story finally broke. In reviewing the draft release on April 10, Eisenhower stressed the importance of sticking to the facts in the Oppenheimer case so that the government could assure “orderly procedure.” “We've got to handle this so that all our scientists are not made out to be Reds,” the President warned, because “that Goddamn McCarthy is just likely to try such a thing.” * As a final effort to neutralize McCarthy, Hagerty sought the senator’s

pledge to keep silent on the Oppenheimer matter for security reasons. When Hagerty learned that Vice-President Nixon had supposedly extracted such a promise from McCarthy, he suggested that Strauss, Everett M. Dirk-

sen, the Senate majority leader, or perhaps even Nixon himself, should remind McCarthy of the need to respect his previous commitments. Later that same day Strauss tried to reassure a still unconvinced Hagerty that McCarthy had been silenced. Everything seemed to be under control for opening the Gray board hearings on Monday morning, April 12.

THE GRAY BOARD CONVENES

During the week of anxiety at the White House and the Commission over the possibility that McCarthy might capitalize on the Oppenheimer case, the personnel security board began its review of the scientist’s clearance file. On the morning of April 5, 1954, Gray, Morgan, and Evans gathered in their makeshift headquarters for a briefing on security criteria and pro-

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

cedures. Thereafter, with Robb and Rolander close at hand to answer questions or provide technical assistance, they worked meticulously through the file. Throughout the week they remained as anonymous as possible, avoid-

ing the public and eating together at lunch and dinner, where they were often joined by Robb. Not surprisingly, they soon enjoyed a close and personal rapport. *’

At the outset Morgan reported a profoundly disturbing incident that

had occurred just before he left New York. On March 30 he had been approached by Trevor Gardner, a special assistant to the Secretary of the Air Force for research and development, who told Morgan he knew all about the forthcoming hearing. Gardner related that many of the nation’s leading scientists were deeply concerned about the government’s actions, and he warned that great damage could be done to American scientific morale and defense efforts should Oppenheimer’s clearance not be rein-

90 stated. Gardner also cautioned Morgan that, in addition to Reston and the Alsops, McCarthy had the story and might use it to everyone’s detriment. Morgan, who misunderstood neither Gardner’s intentions nor his veiled threats, reported the contact to Gray, who passed the information on to

Strauss. Strauss, in turn, informed the President and the Secretary of Defense.” The impact of the Gardner incident on the Oppenheimer case was subtle. Mitchell assured Morgan he could dismiss the matter from his mind, secure in the knowledge that the government had matters well in hand. But the incident, which had involved a serious leak of classified information, left a residue of suspicion with Gray and Morgan on the eve of the hearings. At a minimum they were distressed by the improper advances made on Oppenheimer’s behalf. More seriously, perhaps, the incident provided firsthand evidence that Oppenheimer and his friends disregarded the ordinary constraints of the security system and intimidated opponents and critics. By the end of the week, Gray was no longer passively analyzing Oppenheimer’s file but was contributing derogatory evidence that he had heard about the scientist.” Gray’s suspicions of Oppenheimer and his friends significantly increased following the publication of Reston’s story on the second day of the hearing. Apparently ignorant of Hagerty’s strategy to force publication in the New York Times, Gray had accepted Garrison’s pledge that he would do everything possible to keep the story out of the press. Unfortunately, Garrison did not tell Gray that he had already given Reston copies of the statement of charges and Oppenheimer’s reply. Thus, when the Times accompanied its story with full texts of these documents, it was painfully clear to Gray that Garrison had been less than candid with the board. No one at the Commission seriously questioned Oppenheimer’s right to release the charges, and even Gray did not regard the publication a breach of security.

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

Nevertheless, given Garrison’s prior assurances of confidentiality, the episode provided the Gray board still another example of how Oppenheimer

and his associates placed their personal judgment above the “rules” by which everyone else had agreed to be governed. [nexcusably, no one at the

White House or at the Commission had bothered to tell Gray that the “rules” had been changed.” After weeks of preparation the hearings began on Monday morning, April 12. Perhaps to avoid reporters, perhaps because of the shortage of space in the Commission’s headquarters building, Gray convened the hearings in a converted office on the second floor of a dilapidated temporary building that the Commission occupied on Constitution Avenue, near the Washington Monument. In accordance with Commission practice, the security hearing was closed, and attendance was strictly limited. The only Commission personnel were the three members of the board, Robb, Rolan-

der, a classification officer, a court reporter, and a transcriber. With Op- 91 penheimer and his wife were Garrison and his legal associates—Silverman, Allen B. Ecker, and sometimes Marks. Before this group appeared a steady

stream of forty witnesses, including Oppenheimer. The list of witnesses included prominent government officials who had known Oppenheimer dur-

ing and after World War II, two former Commission chairmen and three former Commissioners, several members of the general advisory committee, Nobel laureates, some of Oppenheimer’s academic colleagues at Berkeley, leaders of the American scientific community, and former Army security

officers. Beginning at nine-thirty each morning, the sessions lasted with few exceptions until well after five, usually for five days each week over a period of four weeks.

Gray opened the first session by reading the statement of charges and Oppenheimer’s autobiographical reply.*' In his moving response, Oppenheimer admitted all but three of Nichols’s allegations. He was, by his own admission to the board, a fellow traveler, whose brother Frank, sisterin-law Jacquenette, friend Jean Tatlock, and wife Katherine had all been members of the Communist party. Oppenheimer’s confession, however, was

hardly startling or incriminating. Army and Commission officials had known about the uncontested derogatory information for years and twice, in 1942 and 1947, had passed favorably on Oppenheimer’s clearance despite the record. In fact, Gray was deeply troubled that most of the allegations placed Oppenheimer in double jeopardy, contrary to the American system of justice.” Ironically the members of the board were much more concerned about the three allegations Oppenheimer denied: that he had attended a communist meeting in his home in 1941; that he had obstructed progress on the thermonuclear weapon; and that he had lied about contacts with Soviet agents. Thousands of words and many weeks later, the board’s delib-

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

erations would focus on the second and third of these allegations; they were, in fact, to determine Oppenheimer’s fate, whatever public reasons the board and the Commission might give.

ALLEGATIONS: THE CROUCH INCIDENT

Of the first controverted allegation, the Commission and the FBI had known

for more than a year that the so-called “Crouch incident” could not be substantiated. In May 1950 Paul Crouch and his wife had testified before the California committee on un-American activities that they had attended a Communist party meeting at Oppenheimer’s Berkeley residence. Now before the Gray board, Oppenheimer explained what Gordon Dean had long known: Oppenheimer could not have attended such a meeting because he

92 was on vacation with his wife in New Mexico at the time, a fact that was confirmed by their guest, Hans Bethe.”

ALLEGATIONS: THE HYDROGEN BOMB

The second controverted charge, which contended that Oppenheimer had obstructed the development of the hydrogen bomb, was at the same time a central issue in the minds of Oppenheimer’s critics and one of the most difficult allegations to substantiate. Aside from noting Oppenheimer’s wellknown reservations about the hydrogen weapon, Nichols cited only two specific incidents of alleged obstruction. The first was that Oppenheimer had sent reports to Los Alamos about the October 1949 meeting of the general advisory committee, which had recommended against accelerating thermonuclear development. The second was that he had discouraged other scientists (unnamed in the charges) from participating in the project. On the first charge, the Gray board easily determined that the reports in question were not circulated by Oppenheimer but rather had been sent to Los Alamos at the request of the Commission’s general manager in preparation for a Congressional visit.°* But even with this minor charge refuted, the larger question remained: Had Oppenheimer’s opposition to the thermonuclear program jeopardized the security of the United States? Evidence presented to the Gray board established that Oppenheimer had opposed the hydrogen bomb in 1949 on moral and technical grounds, but there was little to indicate that he had obstructed the development of the weapon after Truman had authorized it. Major General Roscoe C. Wilson and David T. Griggs, testifying for the Air Force, recalled Secretary Thomas K. Finletter’s suspicious reaction to Oppenheimer’s preference for tactical atomic bombs over thermonuclear weapons. Furthermore, there was a belief within the Air Force, Griggs reported, that Oppenheimer led a

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

group of scientists determined to clip the wings of the Strategic Air Command by advocating deployment of tactical weapons in Europe and the establishment of continental air defense in North America.” Although the plot against the Strategic Air Command could not be proven, Air Force officials had found some of their misgivings reinforced in April 1952, when Luis Alvarez shared with Finletter and others his recollections of Oppenheimer’s left-wing activities during the prewar period at Berkeley. Alvarez had learned, however, that this information was already in FBI files. As was often true in the Oppenheimer affair, the only “new” information Alvarez could offer concerned Oppenheimer’s apparent duplicity on thermonuclear matters. °°

Despite their suspicions, it was difficult for Oppenheimer’s critics, whether in 1952 during the fight for the second weapon laboratory or in 1954 before the Gray board, to demonstrate conclusively that Oppenheimer

had actually impeded the thermonuclear project. It proved impossible to 93 link his evident lack of enthusiasm for the hydrogen bomb with their suspicions of his disloyalty. In April 1952, when Alvarez saw Finletter, the FBI was also questioning four other nuclear scientists about Oppenheimer’s attitude toward the hydrogen bomb. Of the four, only one, who requested anonymity, openly expressed his doubts about Oppenheimer’s loyalty.*’ On the other hand, Hans Bethe, one scientist Oppenheimer supposedly discouraged, denied that his friend had ever tried to influence him not to work on the hydrogen bomb, although he had agreed in principle with Oppenheimer that the weapon should not be developed. In the final analysis, the significance of the hydrogen bomb charges brought against Oppenheimer must be measured against their ultimate source, Edward Teller. To Robb, Teller conceded that neither did he know what motivated Oppenheimer to oppose the thermonuclear program nor could he prove that Oppenheimer had not acted in good faith. Teller believed, however, that Oppenheimer had given a good deal of “harmful” advice so as deliberately to impede the project. Skirting the assessment of Oppenheimer’s loyalty, Teller speculated that Oppenheimer, not wanting to see his achievements surpassed, might have become a victim of his own vanity. Whatever the reason, Teller thought Oppenheimer should never again have influence over the American thermonuclear program, although he hoped Oppenheimer’s clearance would not be revoked “for a mere mistake of judgment.” °°

When Teller arrived in Washington to testify he was depressed and troubled, as Strauss no doubt noticed during a private visit just before the hearing. To counteract Teller’s doubts and to prepare him as an effective “rebuttal” witness, Robb provided Teller with excerpts from the hearings

and a digest of materials from Oppenheimer’s security file. The tactic worked when Teller, only vaguely aware of Oppenheimer’s left-wing background, shared the alarm of those who read Oppenheimer’s file for the first

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

time. Furthermore, in one instance, he identified testimony that was at variance with his recollection of an earlier conversation with Oppenheimer. Teller seemed to think that Oppenheimer was up to his old tricks, and Robb did nothing to disabuse Teller of this assumption. On the witness stand, Teller offered substantially the same testimony he had earlier given Robb and the FBI. When Robb inquired about Oppenheimer’s loyalty, Teller replied unequivocally, “I have always assumed, and I now assume that he is loyal to the United States.” But to Robb’s question whether he believed Oppenheimer was a security risk, Teller answered:

In a great number of cases I have seen Dr. Oppenheimer act—| understand that Dr. Oppenheimer acted—in a way which for me was exceedingly hard to understand. I thoroughly disagreed with him in numerous issues and his actions frankly appeared to me confused

94 and complicated. To this extent I feel that I would like to see the

vital interests of this country in hands which I understand better,

and therefore trust more.

In this very limited sense I would like to express a feeling that I would feel personally more secure if public matters would rest

in other hands. Afterwards Teller realized he had virtually condemned Oppenheimer for his opinions and advice. Trying to clarify his thinking for Gray, Teller speculated that Oppenheimer would not knowingly or willingly endanger

the safety of the United States. To that extent, he advised, there was no reason to deny clearance. But in contradiction to his earlier statement to Robb, Teller continued, “If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance.” Understandably, Teller admitted he was a “little bit confused on this issue, particularly as it refers to a person of Oppenheimer’s prestige and influence.” ® Nevertheless, he successfully summed up the substance of the hydrogen bomb charges, which Green had drawn from Teller’s FBI interview.

ALLEGATIONS: THE CHEVALIER AFFAIR

The third controverted allegation related to the well-known Chevalier incident. This allegation was disputed, not because there was any doubt that the incident had taken place but rather because there was uncertainty about the facts of the case and the significance of subsequent meetings between Oppenheimer and Haakon Chevalier at Princeton in 1950 and in Paris in 1953. Although the Chevalier incident stood as the single most important issue raised by the statement of charges, the facts of the matter have never

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

been fully disclosed, nor has the importance of this single incident in bringing about Oppenheimer’s ultimate downfall been fully understood. Sometime in 1942 when Russian armies were battling for their very

existence, Peter Ivanov, secretary to the consulate-general of the Soviet Union in San Francisco, asked George C. Eltenton, a British citizen employed by the Shell Development Corporation, to assist the Russians in obtaining information concerning the secret atomic research conducted at the University of California Radiation Laboratory. Ivanov suggested that Eltenton might contact either Lawrence, Oppenheimer, or perhaps Alvarez.©? Later in 1946, when interviewed by the FBI, Eltenton was not certain that the third scientist was Alvarez, although that was his best recollection. In fact, Alvarez was not at Berkeley at the time, but Ivanov may not have known this. Of the three, Eltenton knew only Oppenheimer slightly but not enough to approach him. Instead, he suggested that Chevalier, a Berkeley

professor known to be a close friend of Oppenheimer’s, might serve as a 95 contact with the scientists. Subsequently, Eltenton approached Chevalier with the same request on the grounds that the Soviet armies needed the information in their struggle against the Nazis. Chevalier was uneasy about Eltenton’s request, but he agreed to keep the matter confidential even from

his wife.

Later Oppenheimer invited the Chevaliers to dinner. While both men were in the kitchen mixing drinks, Chevalier casually mentioned his conversation with Eltenton. It is uncertain whether Chevalier merely reported his meeting with Eltenton or mentioned details of the scheme, including the proposed contacts with Lawrence and perhaps Alvarez. But Oppenheimer stated in no uncertain terms that the idea was terribly wrong, and thereupon Chevalier dropped the subject immediately. Thus, Oppenheimer saw no danger in the incident, and, because he was confident Chevalier was no spy, he neglected to report it to security officers at the laboratory. Besides, he was soon swept up in events that demanded his utmost attention. On March 25, 1943, Oppenheimer left California for New Mexico to establish the Los Alamos laboratory. Having assumed command at Los Alamos, Oppenheimer became more sensitive to security requirements. Concerned now that Eltenton bore

watching, he alerted Lieutenant Colonel John Lansdale, Jr., Manhattan Project security officer, to the fact that Eltenton had tried to contact scientists on the project. Not surprisingly, the security officers wanted more de-

tails, and on August 23, 1943, Oppenheimer was cross-examined about this matter by Lt. Colonel Boris T. Pash, an Army counterintelligence officer stationed at the Presidio in San Francisco. Unknown to Oppenheimer, the interview was recorded. Oppenheimer had not anticipated Pash’s interrogation and thus was unprepared for the grilling he received. Pash was particularly interested in

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

indentifying Eltenton’s confederate and the other scientists who might have been approached, but Oppenheimer, wanting to protect himself, Lawrence, and Alvarez, as well as his friend Chevalier, refused to divulge any more

names. Again and again Pash probed, but each time Oppenheimer demurred by responding only that approaches had been made to three persons, two of them (presumably Alvarez and himself) located at Los Alamos. Oppenheimer’s story, although misleading, was accurate as far as it went;

unfortunately, thereafter, it became confused and twisted. Determined to ferret out the truth after additional unsuccessful interviews with Oppenheimer, Lansdale and Pash asked Groves to order Oppenheimer to name the intermediary. Groves eventually complied, but only after a preliminary conversation with Oppenheimer failed to elicit the information voluntarily. Groves thought Oppenheimer was acting like a schoolboy in protecting his friends, but on December 12, 1943, he learned

96 that Oppenheimer had family concerns as well: apparently Chevalier had also talked to his brother, Frank. As the plot thickened, the truth was irretrievably lost. Had Chevalier actually approached both Oppenheimer brothers, or had he spoken only to Frank, who then turned to his older brother for advice? Was Oppenheimer trying to shoulder the entire burden for his brother and friends? Obviously, a great deal was at stake, including the project. Thus, whatever his motives, Oppenheimer secured Groves’s pledge not to report his brother’s name to the FBI, thereby incredibly implicating the head of the Manhattan Project in his story. Back in Washington, Groves wondered whether he was bound by his promise to Oppenhei-

mer. Advised by his aides that he had a higher obligation to national security, Groves nevertheless omitted Frank Oppenheimer’s name from the dispatches alerting the field officers to the chain leading from Eltenton to

the nuclear scientists. There, for the moment, the matter rested. Oppenheimer had been forthcoming in all details of the incident except the names of the other scientists, for which he was not pressed. With no immediate threat to the project and with the principals all under surveillance, Groves saw no need to challenge Oppenheimer further. Besides, the FBI and Army security preferred to make no move until an overt act of espionage had been committed. Premature questioning of either Eltenton or Chevalier might not only drive the suspected spy ring further underground but would also confirm for the Russians the key figures in the American atomic bomb project. In 1946, when the FBI finally interviewed Eltenton, Chevalier, and Oppenheimer, the truth became even more confused. Picked up and questioned simultaneously, Eltenton and Chevalier were cross-checked during their interrogation. At first Chevalier admitted nothing but ultimately confessed he had been approached by Eltenton. He insisted, however, he had talked to no one besides Oppenheimer, to whom he did not mention Eltenton’s name. Eltenton, on the other hand, offered important additional infor-

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

mation. He recalled that Ivanov had suggested contact with three scientists:

Oppenheimer, Lawrence, and a third whom he could not remember but guessed was Alvarez. After the unsuccessful meeting with Robert Oppenheimer, Eltenton dropped the matter but did try to help Chevalier to obtain a government position. By then, however, information in Chevalier’s security file precluded his employment with the government.” On September 5, 1946, the FBI interviewed Oppenheimer, after Chevalier had warned him of the government’s investigation. Believing that his old friend was in trouble for his wartime involvement with Eltenton, Oppenheimer tried to explain to the FBI how he had wanted to warn security officers about Eltenton’s spying without identifying his innocent friend.

To emphasize the importance of Eltenton’s threat, he told the special agents, he had concocted a “complicated cock-and-bull story” about three scientists whom Eltenton sought to contact; actually he thought that he had

been the only person contacted by Chevalier. He implied that in this matter 97 the FBI need investigate no further. Significantly, no mention was made of

Frank Oppenheimer at this time by his brother, Eltenton, Chevalier, or the FBI.° Oppenheimer’s repudiation of his “cock-and-bull story” created serious questions concerning his veracity in 1946, and later in 1954, when he offered essentially the same explanation to the Gray board. He did not know, obviously, about Eltenton’s identification of the three scientists. But what explained his backing down from the original story, which seems to have been authentic? It is always possible, but unlikely, that Oppenheimer had concocted his original story without knowing how closely it conformed

to the actual facts. If this were true, then he had intended to lie in 1943 but attempted to tell the truth in 1946 and after. Alternatively, perceiving his friend’s trouble but confident that Chevalier had given the FBI no additional information, he may have changed his story in 1946 to protect the identity of the scientists, and more particularly, that of his brother. Under this scenario, he would have told the truth in 1943 but would have lied to

the FBI and the Gray board thereafter. Finally, Oppenheimer may have been trying to tell the truth all along. Like Eltenton, however, he may have forgotten most details that Chevalier did not help him reconstruct. In 1943, he was obviously alarmed about the prospects of Soviet espionage, and in a possible allusion to Alvarez’s work at MIT, warned Pash that the Russians were interested in all kinds of information, including radar. By 1946, however, it was evident that neither Lawrence nor Alvarez had been tainted by the Chevalier affair, which had never gone beyond Oppenheimer. Thus, whether out of forgetfulness or because he was embarrassed by his exaggerated warning, Oppenheimer may have tried to adjust his 1946 story to

fit the facts as he understood them. But once he came to believe he had lied to Pash, his only explanation was that his story had been a “fabrication and tissue of lies.” His shame and contrition are apparent throughout the

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

transcript of the hearing. Unquestionably, Oppenheimer’s revised explanation would have been more convincing had he both avoided social contact

with Chevalier after 1943 and mentioned his brother; as it was, he did neither.

It was perhaps significant that Lansdale recalled but one contact; Oppenheimer was not the only witness subject to forgetfulness about this issue. But Lansdale’s recollection was of no assistance because the one person he remembered was Oppenheimer’s brother, Frank. Also appearing as a friendly witness, Groves nevertheless testified that he believed Frank Oppenheimer had been one link in the chain that Robert had tried to conceal. Understandably, Groves did not reveal fully the substance of Robert Oppenheimer’s confession or the part he had played in keeping Frank Oppenheimer’s name from the FBI.’° Robb did not press Groves or Lansdale for this information but simply left it in the classified files beyond

98 Garrison’s reach.

Additional derogatory evidence, not included in the Nichols letter and not examined here, was developed during the hearings. For the most part, this information dealt with Oppenheimer’s associations with suspected

left-wingers such as David Bohm, Giovanni Rossi Lomanitz, Bernard Peters, and Rudi Lamert. One item dealt with Oppenheimer’s handling of Glenn Seaborg’s ambivalent recommendation to the general advisory committee in 1949 concerning the development of the hydrogen bomb. Believing that fairness to Oppenheimer required that he be confronted with his accuser, Robb subpoenaed Borden toward the end of the hearings. By the time Borden took the witness stand, however, those present at the proceedings were benumbed by more than 2,800 pages of testimony. Except for squabbling over whether Borden should be allowed to read his November 3 letter into the record, Oppenheimer’s lawyers did not challenge or ask to cross-examine the person who had instigated the suspension of clearance. After only three more sessions the hearings concluded on May 6, 1954.

THE GRAY BOARD DECISION

On May 27, 1954, the personnel security board, in a two-to-one decision with Gray and Morgan in the majority, recommended against restoring Oppenheimer’s security clearance. With most allegations uncontested and only the Crouch incident denied and unproven, the board’s principal task was evaluating the evidence rather than finding the facts. In that respect, the board found that Oppenheimer was loyal and discreet but nevertheless a security risk. The board acknowledged that it had received convincing testimony of Oppenheimer’s devotion to his country and volunteered that “Dr. Oppenheimer seems to have had a high degree of discretion reflecting

an unusual ability to keep to himself vital secrets.” But the board also

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

asserted that in times of peril, the requirements of national security were absolute. Because there were reasonable doubts in their minds concerning Oppenheimer, they could not recommend reinstatement. Gray and Morgan ultimately outlined four controlling considerations

leading them to their conclusion. First, they found that Oppenheimer’s “continuing conduct and associations” reflected a serious disregard for the requirements of the security system. Principally, Gray was disturbed by the arrogance with which Oppenheimer placed his own judgment above that of more responsible persons. Gray and Morgan perceived Oppenheimer’s arrogance firsthand in the Trevor Gardner incident and the news “leaks”’ to Reston. More particularly, Gray noted his concern about Oppenheimer’s behavior in the Chevalier affair and the hydrogen bomb controversy and his opinions on tactical weapons, nuclear submarines, nuclear-powered aircraft, continental defense, and long-range detection. ’! Oppenheimer’s con-

tinuing contacts with Chevalier in 1950 and 1953 also reflected a disregard 99 for the need to keep his associations above suspicion. With the exception of Chevalier, however, the hearings and the security file revealed no significant contact between Oppenheimer and his prewar left-wing associates after 1943. Of course, he had continued to live with his wife and to see his brother and sister-in-law, and once he met Bohm and Lomanitz on a Princeton street corner while on the way to the barbershop. But unless one was willing to read something sinister into these associations, Oppenheimer committed only one indiscretion—continuing his friendship with Chevalier. No doubt for the board that was serious enough. The board also found Oppenheimer susceptible to influence that could have serious implications for the security of the United States. This finding, perhaps, was the most ironic of all. More than one witness had attacked Oppenheimer for his Svengali-like influence over friends and subordinates. Instead, Gray and Morgan seized on two isolated incidents as proof of the exact opposite—that Oppenheimer was unduly susceptible to the influence of others. In 1943, at the insistence of Edward U. Condon, Oppenheimer and Lawrence had unsuccessfully tried to obtain a draft deferment for Lomanitz. Again, supposedly under pressure from Condon, Oppenheimer had publicly modified his criticism of Peters before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1949, Furthermore, even though he had been openly attacked by Condon in the press, Oppenheimer indicated to the board his willingness to support Condon. Apparently the board considered it a sign of weakness that Oppenheimer would vouch for someone who had criticized him personally. Even Gray and Morgan were uncertain whether these inconclusive incidents demonstrated a susceptibility to influence. As a supplement, therefore, they added that the incidents also reflected bad judgment, a conclusion that clearly raised the question of Oppenheimer’s “understanding, acceptance, and enthusiastic support of the security system.” Again, Oppenheimer’s relations with Reston during the

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

hearings indicated either that he was susceptible to the journalist’s influence or that he used extremely bad judgment. Either way, Oppenheimer’s assurances were not to be trusted. The most unsettling of the board’s conclusions related to Oppenheimer’s “conduct” in the hydrogen bomb project. In response to Nichols’s charges that Oppenheimer had slowed down thermonuclear development, the board found specifically that he had neither circulated the reports in question nor discouraged other scientists from working on the project. As to the more general allegation concerning Oppenheimer’s opposition, the board found that “because of technical questions involved,” it could not categorically state that the project had definitely been delayed. Thus, with the specifications discredited, why did the charge not fall? Rather than dismiss the charge, the board accepted Teller’s reasoning and found that Oppenheimer’s lack of enthusiasm had delayed the initiation of a concerted

100 effort on the hydrogen bomb. Consequently, whatever the motivation, Oppenheimer had damaged the security interests of the United States. The board’s finding, stripped of Teller’s qualification, in effect condemned Oppenheimer for his sincerely offered, if incorrect, opinion. ” Finally, Gray and Morgan “regretfully concluded” that Oppenheimer had been less than candid in his testimony before the board. As Garrison noted in his brief to the Commission, this subjective finding was perhaps the most difficult of all to refute. It was also the most damaging to Oppenheimer’s case. Without access to the classified files, Oppenheimer’s lawyers and most subsequent commentators have assumed the board was referring to the scientist’s testimony about the meeting of the general advisory committee in October 1949 and other matters relating to the hydrogen bomb controversy. No doubt these matters were in the minds of the board members, but from the board’s perspective a more serious lack of candor was revealed in Oppenheimer’s testimony on the Chevalier affair, when he had

failed to be forthcoming about his brother. This failure became a major factor in Nichols’s recommendation to the Commission.

When the hearings were over, Gray believed that the proceedings had been as fair as circumstances allowed. He granted that Oppenheimer and his counsel did not have full access to the documentation in possession of the board, but he did not believe that the deficiency had appreciably disadvantaged Oppenheimer. Gray admitted to some discomfort about Robb’s aggressive cross-examinations and his piecemeal and surprise references “from various documents.” But because Oppenheimer’s veracity was a major issue, Gray ultimately justified Robb’s prosecutorial methods on the grounds that only a vigorous and effective cross-examination could get at the truth.” Curiously, Robb had been inexplicably gentle when it came to pressing Oppenheimer, Groves, and Lansdale for the facts concerning Frank Oppenheimer’s involvement in the Chevalier affair.

Whatever doubts Gray may have had concerning the fairness of

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

Robb’s tactics were laid to rest when Robb volunteered to help Evans write his dissenting opinion. Evans’s original pencil draft had alarmed Gray, who

was less concerned by the dissent than he was by the prospect that the statement, if filed as written, would reflect unfavorably on Evans and probably on the work of the board itself. Thus, after completing his work on the

majority decision, Robb in turn assisted Evans in preparing his brief. Evans could find no basis for denying Oppenheimer clearance. The charges relating to his left-wing past were old and twice evaluated; those pertaining to the hydrogen bomb controversy were utterly unproven. Evans observed that many of Oppenheimer’s statements before the board still showed him

to be naive but nevertheless extremely honest. But more than Oppenheimer’s clearance was at stake. Evans expressed greatest concern about the impact a decision against Oppenheimer would have on scientific development in the United States and on American scientific prestige abroad.

Hailed by some as an eloquent defense of Oppenheimer and science, in 10l truth Evans’s dissent was barely adequate, not even beginning to refute the arguments that Gray and Morgan had developed in detail.”

NICHOLS’S RECOMMENDATION

Under established Commission procedures, either the manager of the field office or the deputy general manager at headquarters was responsible for handling security cases in his area. The manager appointed the personnel security board and received its findings. Then the manager notified the subject of the board’s recommendation, the manager’s decision, and the subject’s right to appeal the findings to a personnel security review board. In addition, the manager also had the right of appeal. Should the case be appealed, the review board, if it chose, could take additional testimony, hear oral arguments, or receive supplemental briefs from counsel. Again, the manager made the final decision, based on the files, the boards’ recommendations, and his own judgment about the impact upon the atomic energy program if the clearance were denied.” The Oppenheimer case presented the Commission an anomaly, not only because of the importance of the case but because it was heard at headquarters. Because the Commission had no deputy general manager at the time, the responsibility devolved on Nichols, who of necessity worked very closely with the Commissioners. Furthermore, as Murray, Smyth, and Zuckert argued, the Commission could not avoid accepting direct respon-

sibility in this matter. Under these circumstances, the Commissioners rather than the manager would exercise final judgment in the Oppenheimer case. “°

Garrison advised Oppenheimer to waive his appeal to a review board

so that the case could go directly to the Commission, as he had always

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

wanted. With Oppenheimer’s contract due to expire on June 30, there was always danger that a delay would render the case moot and damagingly unresolved. Unfortunately, having sacrificed his appeal to a review board, Oppenheimer no longer had a forum in which to argue his case. Garrison’s

request to appear before the Commission to present oral arguments on Oppenheimer’s behalf was refused without explanation. This move left Garrison absolutely in the dark about Nichols’s recommendation to the Commission. While preparing his rebuttal, Garrison also felt more keenly than ever his failure to secure a clearance. The Commission was required to reject his request for access to the pertinent file material because, at Robb’s suggestion, the staff had discontinued processing Garrison’s application for clearance during the Gray board hearings.” Nichols’s recommendation, presented to the Commission on June 12, 1954, was a forceful document in which the general manager showed

102 his long distrust of Oppenheimer. From the earliest days of the Manhattan Project, Nichols had been uncertain of Oppenheimer’s loyalty and had opposed giving him a security clearance. Even without evidence of disloyalty, Nichols believed Oppenheimer had endangered American security by both recruiting questionable people for the program and seriously disregarding the security system. Candidly, he confessed to the Commission that not until he was appointed general manager had he been in a position to “take action” regarding Oppenheimer. ® He presented the Commission with a brief that might be called the Nichols model for justifying suspension of Oppenheimer’s clearance. According to Nichols, the situation could be described with mathematical curves. While Oppenheimer’s access to classified information remained high and constant, his usefulness to the government had been steadily declining since the end of World War II. Nichols also charted Oppenheimer’s “Communist associations” on a downward curve between 1943 and 1954, but as associations decreased, the risk from those associations increased. In other words, although usefulness and left-wing associations had decreased as a consequence of the Cold War, the danger from

Oppenheimer actually increased.” Finally, Nichols was not troubled by the intimation that Oppenheimer’s clearance had been suspended on the basis of old information. Quite the contrary, he told the commissioners, never before had the facts of the files been comprehensively reviewed; indeed, evaluating all the derogatory information together rendered the old material new. For obvious reasons, Nichols indicated that he concurred in the findings and recommendations of the board, but in fact his letter to the Commission contained a significant shift in emphasis. First, Nichols rejected the findings concerning the hydrogen bomb controversy except “as evidence bearing on Dr. Oppenheimer’s veracity.” Nichols said that technical opinions could have no security implications unless they were coupled with sinister motives, and “the evidence establishes no sinister motives on the

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

part of Dr. Oppenheimer in his attitude on the hydrogen bomb, either be-

fore or after the President’s decision.” In effect, he rejected one of the board’s “controlling considerations.” Nichols recommended rejecting Oppenheimer’s clearance on three grounds: the Chevalier incident, his lack of veracity, and his past and continuing associations. Nichols thus altered substantially the grounds for decision. With susceptibility to influence and the hydrogen bomb controversy eliminated as considerations, the Commission’s refusal to allow oral argument became manifestly unfair. As Smyth prophetically warned: “If we give Dr. Oppenheimer’s attorneys no opportunity to comment on the Nichols’s letter, we will be open to grave criticism when the letter is published.” ® The Nichols brief, Smyth realized, was an important document in the proceeding, not a simple letter of transmittal.

Nichols, with Robb’s assistance, briefed the Commission on his analysis of the case; he emphasized that he had focused on the Chevalier 103 affair, with the rest supplemental. “If you feel I am wrong on the Chevalier incident,” he told the Commissioners, “then you can say I have gone overboard on some of these other things.” Nichols had hoped that Oppenheimer could clarify the Chevalier incident during the hearings, instead of leaving the situation as confused as ever. If Oppenheimer was truly attempting to protect his friend in 1943, Nichols wondered why he had told the “cockand-bull story,” which was far more damaging to Chevalier than his subsequent version given to the FBI in 1946. Although Nichols was upset that

Oppenheimer had not been forthcoming, he did not explain why Robb failed to cross-examine Oppenheimer, Groves, or Lansdale on this point. Nor did he explain why the man with the clearest recollection of the events— William A. Considine, Groves’s chief legal adviser—was not called to testify. *!

Nichols thought the Chevalier incident provided the principal evidence for Oppenheimer’s lack of veracity. However the uncertainty was resolved, Nichols believed Oppenheimer a liar. But because the unchallenged evidence in the files indicated strongly that the 1943 version of the incident was more accurate than the later less damaging 1946 account, Nichols and Robb saw the possibility that Oppenheimer had lied to the Gray board when he repudiated the “cock-and-bull story.”” Oppenheimer’s motive, Nichols assumed, was the same that had prompted him to request Groves’s confidence—to protect his brother Frank. Shortly after Oppenheimer’s clearance had been suspended by the President, Frank Oppenheimer had denied any involvement in the Chevalier affair.®? Assuming his confession to Groves was accurate, Oppenheimer obviously could not confirm it without directly impugning his brother. The situation was similar to that in 1946 when FBI agents confronted him with a story that he could not repudiate without hurting Chevalier. In both instances, the simple and more innocent version shifted the burden away from his friend and brother to

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

himself; to some that might have appeared noble, but to Nichols it represented an inexcusable breach of the security system as well as outright lying.®

Finally, Nichols was alarmed at the sinister implications of Oppenheimer’s visit to Chevalier in Paris in December 1953. The issue was officially labeled “continued associations” in his briefing to the Commission. Nichols expressed his personal fear that Oppenheimer’s visit was not entirely social or innocent. “The non-charitable view is this,” he explained to the Commissioners, “why would Oppenheimer of his own initiative come here to Washington to see Ken Fields to get a briefing on weapons, go out to Los Alamos on a briefing of weapons, just prior to going to Paris to see Chevalier?” For Nichols the implication was self-evident and unaccept-

able. As he had told the Commission, if they accepted his premise concerning the relationship between Oppenheimer and Chevalier, all else

104. would fall into place.

WHITE HOUSE REACTION

At the White House, Eisenhower agreed with Nichols’s assessment of the impropriety of Oppenheimer’s Paris visit with Chevalier. “How can any individual report a treasonable act on the part of another man and then go and stay at his home for several days?” the President asked. “It just doesn’t make any sense to me.”® Although Eisenhower had his facts garbled—the Chevaliers had only entertained the Oppenheimers for dinner—the President harbored no second thoughts about his suspension of clearance. When informed that Oppenheimer and Garrison under pressure from Reston were contemplating release of both the Gray board findings and Garrison’s rejoinder to the Commission, Eisenhower commented that Oppenheimer was acting just like a communist, using all the rules to win public sentiment through martyrdom. Nevertheless, the President was determined above all else that the Commission “must act decent on this and must show the people of the country that we are more interested in trying to find out the facts than to get headlines like McCarthy does.” * In addition to the squeeze between Oppenheimer and McCarthy, Strauss reported that the Truman appointees to the Commission— Murray, Smyth, and Zuckert—were playing politics with the Oppenheimer case. Murray, especially, was suspected of leaking the Commission’s discussion to several newspapers as part of his continuing fight against Strauss. As late as June 10, Strauss estimated that the three Commissioners would vote to restore Oppenheimer’s clearance in order to embarrass the Republican Administration. Strauss cited the Commission’s decision to rule on the case and its haste to decide the matter before Zuckert’s term expired on June 30 as evidence of their determination to save Oppenheimer at the chairman’s

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

expense. Eisenhower sympathized with Strauss and assured him that he was more determined than ever to secure a Republican majority on the Commission following Zuckert’s retirement.*! Suspicions and acrimony deepened over the debate whether to pub-

lish the Gray board hearings. Strauss learned from the FBI that Garrison and Oppenheimer feared publication of the transcript would greatly harm Oppenheimer’s case. In order to mitigate the damage, Oppenheimer again discussed with Reston the possibility of releasing prior to the Commission’s decision excerpts from the transcript most favorable to Oppenheimer.® Strauss, who naturally wanted to beat him to the punch with a full disclosure of the hearings, encouraged Gray to request publication of the unclassified version of the hearings. Unfortunately for Strauss, Gray had previ-

ously assured each witness that the proceedings, in accordance with Commission regulations, would be kept strictly confidential; furthermore,

Gray had promised that the Commission would take no initiative to release 105 information on the hearings. It would seem that the Commission could do nothing but wait for Oppenheimer to act.®?

Fortuitously, Strauss found his excuse for publication of the hearings. Overwhelmed by the massive transcript and files, Smyth had asked two Commission officials to prepare a summary of the case listing each of Nichols’s charges along with Oppenheimer’s reply, pertinent file material, and related testimony. The summary of evidence condensed the entire case into 241 convenient pages. Also pressed to review the transcript and evidence, Zuckert obtained a copy of the summary and took it with him on the train to Boston on Saturday, June 12. In the confusion of disembarking his family from the train in Boston, Zuckert forgot to pick up the summary, which was later recovered by the FBI. Strauss, reporting the incident to the White House, relayed his suspicions that Zuckert had actually passed the document on to Oppenheimer’s friends. With the material compromised, Strauss believed there was no choice but to publish the hearings as quickly as possible. Murray and Smyth blocked immediate action, principally on the grounds that the Commission had an obligation to protect the confidential testimony of the witnesses. But after Nichols secured releases from the

board and witnesses, only Smyth held out against publication, on the grounds that the testimony should not be released until the Commission had made its own decision.”

THE COMMISSION DECISION

Strauss did not realize it, but the vote to publish the Gray board hearings anticipated the Commission’s ultimate division in the Oppenheimer case. Uncertain of the vote until three days before Oppenheimer’s contract was due to expire, Strauss reported to the White House on June 27 that the

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

President’s suspension would be upheld by a vote of four to one, with Smyth

dissenting. Strauss accepted White House congratulations for doing “a wonderful job,” but it is problematical whether he personally influenced any decision other than Campbell’s.”! Actually, the Commission delivered five opinions in the Oppenheimer case. Strauss wrote the majority opinion in which Zuckert and Campbell concurred. Both Zuckert and Campbell, however, also submitted sepa-

rate opinions of their own. In addition, Murray and Smyth submitted independent opinions in the matter; Smyth’s, of course, was a dissent. The decision was officially made on June 28, 1954.” Smyth’s dissent offered a logical and sympathetic explanation of the derogatory information in the files. Noting the “clear conclusion” of the board that Oppenheimer was completely loyal, Smyth could not concur that he was nevertheless a security risk. With respect to the Chevalier episode,

106 Smyth found the incident inexcusable but understandable and without serious consequence for American security. Furthermore, he failed to find any pattern of “continuing association” beyond minor “occasional incidents of a complex life.” As for Oppenheimer’s alleged lack of veracity, Smyth concluded: “Unless one confuses a manner of expression with candor, or errors in recollection with lack of veracity, Dr. Oppenheimer’s testimony

before the Gray board has the ring of honesty.” According to Smyth, the only question to be determined by the Commission was whether Oppenhetimer might intentionally or unintentionally reveal classified information to

persons who should not have it. His character and associations were important only insofar as they indicated the likelihood of security violations. If one began with the assumption that Oppenheimer was disloyal, Smyth continued, the derogatory information might arouse suspicion. But, if the entire record were read objectively, Smyth argued, Oppenheimer’s loyalty and trustworthiness emerged clearly, and the various disturbing incidents became understandable and unimportant. Smyth evaluated the whole man: Oppenheimer’s contributions to the nation, his disassociation from subversive organizations after 1942, his mature view of the communist threat expressed repeatedly in high government councils between 1945 and 1953, and, finally, the high tribute and expressions of confidence given by some twenty-five witnesses of impeccable character and high responsibility in Oppenheimer’s behalf. He weighed all this information, the favorable and the unfavorable, and decided that Oppenheimer’s employment would not endanger American security but rather was “clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.” In sharp contrast to Smyth’s opinion, Murray was the only person involved in the case to find Oppenheimer “disloyal.” Murray offered a legalistic and extremely rigid definition of loyalty. After tracing the derivations of the concept, Murray concluded that a person’s loyalty must be judged against obedience to the security system. Such a standard provided

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

the decisive measure of one’s loyalty to one’s government. In addition, the communist conspiracy had created special problems for the United States, which had been forced to erect a system of laws and executive orders designed to protect the government “against the hidden machinery of subver-

sion.” When applying his loyalty test to Oppenheimer, Murray found a frequent and deliberate disregard for those regulations that restricted associations and a seriously deficient cooperation with the security system. On this basis, he determined that Oppenheimer was “disloyal.” Murray’s opinion was deficient in several respects. In contrast to every other opinion, he did not specify or allude to any evidence to support either of his findings. In his only reference to the facts of the case, Murray reversed his original position by placing no significance at all on the evidence relating to the thermonuclear controversy. Instead, he eloquently rejected the idea that any influence of disloyalty could be drawn from opinions offered in good faith to the government. Thus, one must read between 107 the lines to find the evidence that disturbed Murray. In doing so, it would appear that he based his decision almost entirely upon the Chevalier affair and particularly on the meetings between Oppenheimer and Chevalier in 1950 and 1953. In strictly following Nichols’s logic, however, Murray failed to balance “the whole man” against deviation from the norm of conduct revealed in Oppenheimer’s contacts with Chevalier. Murray’s opinion was a syllogism founded on a false premise: the security criteria established norms for loyal citizens; Oppenheimer deviated from the norm; therefore,

Oppenheimer was disloyal. It is evident that once the hydrogen bomb charges were swept away Murray had difficulty finding adequate ground for

denying clearance. His inflexible standard allowed him to focus on the derogatory facts without evaluating their importance. On the other hand, Campbell’s opinion was ambiguous. In general, he viewed his responsibility as the narrowest possible appellate review. After summarizing the proceedings against Oppenheimer, he concluded that the board had conducted a fair hearing with honesty and integrity. Campbell not only sustained the recommendations of the board and the general manager, but by signing the majority opinion he also concurred in the Commission’s wide-ranging review and reevaluation of the evidence. Given the striking differences between the board’s findings and Nichols’s recommen-

dations, Campbell’s position made it impossible to determine just which opinion he accepted. His confusion, however, pointed up the injustice of denying Oppenheimer a chance to answer Nichols’s recommendations. Oral arguments before the Commission might have helped to clear the confusion apparent in Campbell’s opinion. Zuckert’s statement also differed sharply from Murray’s. He rejected Murray’s idea that any deviation from the security system amounted to disloyalty. Obviously referring to the Chevalier affair, he stated that no single act of lying or isolated disregard of security considerations and obstruction

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

of security inquiries would by themselves have been decisive. But when he perceived “a combination of seriously disturbing actions and events” as

reported in the Oppenheimer case, he decided that risk to security had passed acceptable bounds. Zuckert correctly understood that his task was to weigh the risks presented by the individual against what was “at stake and the job to be done.” Zuckert’s opinion might be criticized for its failure to state the need for weighing favorable information, which in Oppenheimer’s case was considerable, but perhaps this was implicit in his duty “to determine how much of a risk is involved in respect to any particular individual.” Zuckert’s statement is logical and convincing, subject to criticism only by applying Zuckert’s standards against the facts of the Oppenheimer case; this is done in Strauss’s analysis of the majority opinion.

The majority decision, Strauss said, stood on two legs: “fundamental defects in character” and Oppenheimer’s “associations.” Following

108 Nichols’s recommendation, Strauss rejected categorically any inference that the Commission’s decision was based in any way on Oppenheimer’s role in the thermonuclear controversy. As to “character,” the majority cited six incidents in which Oppenheimer had behaved improperly. Not surprisingly, the Chevalier affair headed the list. Strauss reflected the same ambivalence toward the evidence as Nichols, and he arrived at essentially the same conclusion. Whether Oppenheimer lied to Pash and Groves in 1943 or to the Gray board in 1954 was virtually academic because the results were about the same: on the one hand, he had lied to federal security officers; on the other, he had committed perjury before the board. The remaining five illustrations merely supplemented the main example. Strauss reiterated the evidence concerning Lomanitz, Peters, the Seaborg letter, and other incidents. He noted that Oppenheimer had told the FBI in 1950 that he did not know that Joseph Weinberg had been a communist until the fact became public. As the recording of his 1943 interview with Lansdale revealed, however, Oppenheimer knew Weinberg to be a communist much earlier. Yet how was this an illustration of his defect in character? What deception could Oppenheimer hope to accomplish by lying to the FBI in 1950 when he had admitted knowing Weinberg to be a communist in 1943? Clearly, the whole interview revealed nothing but a failure in recollection; but viewed against the Chevalier incident, the lapse suggested to the majority a pattern in which Oppenheimer mitigated his stories after 1946. Significantly, the majority opinion stated that its findings on Oppenheimer’s “fundamental defects of character” were not limited to six examples cited but that “the work of Military Intelligence, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Atomic Energy Commission—all at one time or another have felt the effect of his falsehoods, evasions and misrepresentations.” The charge was sweeping and tantalizing in that it suggested large reservoirs of information yet untapped in the file. In fact, as Harold Green knew, there was nothing more, unless one looked at the ma-

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

terial relating to the hydrogen bomb charges. Perhaps, in a backhanded way, that was what the Commission meant to imply. To substantiate the second leg of the majority opinion, Strauss cited Oppenheimer’s left-wing associations prior to 1942 but was careful to state

that these well-known associations were not in themselves a controlling reason for the Commission’s decision. Not surprisingly, Oppenheimer’s meeting with Chevalier in Paris provided the main basis for this finding. Here the failure to underscore favorable information was particularly damaging because the majority neglected to point out that one meeting had included André Malraux, an important adviser to Charles De Gaulle. The most intelligent view of this episode was expressed in the hearings by George F. Kennan, who believed that senior government officials must be permitted maturity of judgment to know when and under what circumstances they can see a person:

If they come to you sometimes, | think it is impossible for you to 109 turn them away abruptly or in a cruel way, simply because you are afraid of association with them, so long as what they are asking of you is nothing that affects your governmental work. I myself say it is a personal view on the part of Christian charity to try to be at least as decent as you can to them.” Kennan’s plea for Christian charity succumbed to Nichols’s fears of communist conspiracy. In its decision, the majority made no mention of Oppenheimer’s work at Los Alamos or to his years of faithful service and

devotion to duty. The Commission’s decision read like a judgment in a criminal case demanding punishment for misconduct in the past rather than a security evaluation predicting Oppenheimer’s future behavior, based upon all relevant data. This failure to evaluate the “whole person” was the Commission’s most fundamental error. In the final analysis, even the Commissioners apparently realized the flimsiness of their rationale for denying

clearance. They could not in good conscience say that Oppenheimer’s clearance would “endanger the national security” or be inconsistent with the requirements of the security system. Instead, they declared that “concern for the defense and security of the United States requires that Dr. Oppenheimer’s clearance should not be reinstated.” Ironically, neither the Atomic Energy Act nor the regulations required such a finding.

AFTERMATH AND CONSEQUENCES

Decades later, the Oppenheimer case continued to haunt those who participated in it and to fascinate those who discovered it as either history or legend. It involved primarily one of the most celebrated scientists of modern times, a man whose career seemed to epitomize the awesome role that

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

science had come to play in American life. And, as the Commission’s formal opinions made clear, the case did not involve mere political opinions or scientific judgments but more fundamental matters of morality, loyalty and service to one’s country, and ultimately the role of the scientist in a democracy. The very terms in which the issue was cast suggested themes

that transcended both twentieth-century America and modern science. Some observers could not help thinking of a modern-day Galileo on trial for speaking the truth about nature or even a new Socrates accepting the judgments of lesser men. In more contemporary terms, some believed that Oppenheimer, as a victim of McCarthyism, shared a martyrdom similar to Scopes, Sacco and Vanzetti, or the Rosenbergs and Hiss. If such large implications of the Oppenheimer case did not assure it a place in American consciousness, the publication of the transcript surely did. The transcript, with its hundreds of pages of testimony ranging over

110 the whole history of nuclear development in America since 1942, provided an extraordinary insight into the hitherto secret world of the atomic energy establishment. As one journalist remarked, “The Oppenheimer transcript is Operation Candor.”™* The debate over the hydrogen bomb, the fight among the nuclear scientists and with the Air Force over national defense policy, and the scores of other previously classified episodes were outlined in vivid and often embarrassing detail. The human foibles of petty falsehood, pride, misunderstanding, self-deception, and envy were preserved for all to see.

Given the rich human quality of the material and the dialogue from the transcript, it was not surprising that playwrights soon saw the dramatic possibilities of the Oppenheimer case.

For those whose lives were touched directly, the case had added dimensions. No participant would ever be the same again. For Oppenheimer and his family, the impact was obvious and devastating, and it did not end with the Commission’s decision. The Commission and the FBI were frightened by intelligence reports in August 1954 that Soviet agents were trying to arrange for Oppenheimer’s defection and even more by Oppenheimer’s decision to take his family on a sailing vacation in the Virgin Islands.?? Obviously the case had not closed with the stripping of Oppenheimer’s clearance and credentials as a government official. For more than a decade, Oppenheimer would linger in exile, cut off from a world that had been the center of his career, a world he had done much to create.

For others the repercussions were long-lasting if not so severe. Strauss, Teller, Borden, Green, Robb, Garrison, Smyth, Murray, and Zuckert would never in the eyes of the public be able to shake off their identification with the case. All would share in varying degrees public criti-

cism and vindication for their roles in the drama. An episode that under other circumstances would have soon passed from public memory would indelibly mark their careers, taint their subsequent achievements, and embitter relationships among them for years to come.

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

Vexing and painful as the scars on individuals were, the institutional effects of the Oppenheimer case were probably more significant. Initially the Commission as a federal agency drew relatively little criticism from the

public. For the most part, press reaction was not hostile; nor, with the exception of the Alsops’ diatribe, We Accuse!, did journalists take up Oppenheimer’s cause after the Commission’s final decision. Slightly more than three hundred individuals outside the establishment took time to express their opposition to the decision while almost fifty approved.” The greatest criticism came from scientists, especially those within the atomic community. Even before the hearings were concluded, twentyseven physicists from the University of Illinois signed a statement in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists protesting the hydrogen bomb charges against Oppenheimer. In the same issue, thirteen prominent scientists, including Linus Pauling and Albert Einstein, affirmed their faith in Oppen-

heimer. Hans Bethe, president of the American Physical Society, tele- 11] graphed the society’s denunciation of the Gray board’s decision before the Commission's final vote. Petitions signed by eleven hundred scientists and staff from the national laboratories and leading universities expressed indignation at the action against Oppenheimer and warned of damage to Commission programs. Nichols was so concerned about the protest from Argonne that he considered going to Chicago personally, as he had done under similar circumstances in 1945, to explain the government’s action to the

scientists. He was dissuaded only when Walter H. Zinn, director of the laboratory, assured him that the visit was unnecessary. ”’ Strauss was troubled if not surprised by the scientists’ reactions and attempted to explain the Commission’s position at the July meeting of the general advisory committee. Recognizing that almost half of the petitioners had worked at Los Alamos, where Oppenheimer had been the wartime di-

rector, Strauss decided to present a presidential citation to the laboratory for its extraordinary achievement. The gesture, dubbed “Operation ButterUp” by one newspaper,” was too transparent to be effective. There was also some concern expressed through the general advisory committee that the Commission would launch a massive review of security clearances using questionable associations as derogatory evidence. Such fears stemmed directly from the formal opinions of Murray and Zuckert in the Oppenheimer

case.” Despite warnings from the general advisory committee of low morale

in the Commission’s laboratories, no mass exodus of disenchanted scientists occurred. Neither did recruitment for Commission projects lag, nor

did vital programs suffer from a lack of qualified scientists. How the Oppenheimer case affected the career decisions of individual scientists has never been determined in any systematic way. Some saw the Commission’s action as outrageous and sickening; in the minds of others, Oppenheimer got what he deserved. There was, however, a subtle but permanent shift in

THE OPPENHEIMER CASE

many scientists’ perception of the Commission. Eight years earlier the scientists had seen the Commission as their agency, a new and enlightened institution that could, among other things, free the scientist from the restraints and indignities of military control. The Commission had justified

that faith, but the Oppenheimer case had planted seeds of doubt. It was not likely that an agency that had destroyed the career of a leader like Oppenheimer could ever again enjoy the full confidence of the nation’s scientists. To that extent, the effects of the Oppenheimer case were permanent and damaging.

112

CHAPTER 5

THE POLITICAL ARENA

James R. Newman, one author of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, described the law as establishing “in the midst of our privately controlled economy a socialist island with undefined and possibly expanding frontiers.”’' Newman was referring to the sections of the act that gave the Commission absolute control over all fissionable materials, all facilities using

or producing such material, and all information related to nuclear technology. Under the almost inflexible provisions of the law, the Commission had virtually dominated the development of nuclear technology in the five years since 1947. Other sections of the act exempted the Commission from the civil service system and from many administrative laws and regulations

that applied to other government agencies. These exemptions gave the Commission an unusual degree of flexibility in administration and made possible the recruitment of a staff with capabilities exceptional in the civil service. Furthermore, the enormous sums appropriated by the Congress for military applications of atomic energy insured the agency a “standard of living” that few Cabinet departments enjoyed. Living in this rarified atmosphere, the Commission could afford to exercise an unusual degree of independence from both the Executive and Legislative branches of the government, from the pressures of lobbyists and special interest groups, and from the political process as a whole. Before 1953 the Commissioners could say with more truth than could most government executives that their agency was untouched by the stain of politics. The golden days of privilege and isolation, however, were beginning to fade in 1953. The rising interest in nuclear energy within American industry, the determination of the Eisenhower Administration to reverse the trend toward greater governmental control of the economic system, the growing opportunities to use nuclear energy for civilian purposes and to encourage

THE POLITICAL ARENA

international cooperation as a way to world peace—all these forces stimulated public interest in liberalizing the Atomic Energy Act of 1946. These efforts would in part establish at least some bridges between the “island of socialism” and the mainland of the nation’s “free enterprise system,” open new channels for disseminating nuclear technology, and reduce the extent of the government monopoly. The process of amending the act would itself begin to lead the Commission and its staff out of the secret, sealed-off world of the atom. The points at issue in the legislative debate involved not so much the special considerations of nuclear technology but rather such broad policy questions as the role of government and private industry in the nation’s energy economy. Such a debate alone would have inevitably entangled the Commission in the web of partisan politics. As it happened, the Dixon-Yates controversy, as Commissioner Zuckert put it, was “to deflower the AEC in a political sense.”? By summer 1954, when

14 the new legislation took effect, the Atomic Energy Commission would find itself in the middle of the political arena.

LEGISLATION FOR PRIVATE INDUSTRY

In formulating a nuclear power policy for the Eisenhower administration in spring 1953, the Commission had drafted legislation intended to remove some legal obstacles to participation by private industry.* The bill would have permitted, under license by the Commission, the private ownership of both power reactors and the fissionable material used as fuel in or produced by the reactors. Even the Commission, however, recognized that the bill

was preliminary in several respects. It did not speak to such important matters as patents and contained no provision for international cooperation. Because Dean had no time to clear the draft within the Executive Branch before presenting it to the Joint Committee on May 26, 1953, the Bureau of the Budget asked the committee not to release the bill to the public. Review of the proposal within the bureau and other executive agencies quickly revealed major issues that went to the heart of Administration policy, not only on nuclear power but on other economic matters as well.

There was general agreement within the Executive Branch, for example, that the government monopoly of reactors and fissionable materials would have to be relaxed in some way. But would such a relaxation weaken controls that seemed essential for safety and security reasons? And what would

prevent the few large corporations like du Pont, General Electric, and Union Carbide, which had already attained a high degree of competence in nuclear technology as Commission contractors, from monopolizing the infant industry as licensees? Congressmen Chet Holifield and Melvin Price,

two Democratic members of the Joint Committee, voiced concerns of public-power advocates, calling the Administration’s proposal a vast “give-

THE POLITICAL ARENA

away” of the public treasure. In their minds the federal government had invested more than twelve billion dollars in developing nuclear technology while industry had provided little financial support. Now the Administration proposed, they argued, to let a few giant corporations monopolize the technology developed at government expense. Holifield and Price would

have been fascinated to know that within the Administration Sinclair Weeks, the conservative Secretary of Commerce, had expressed similar reservations. Weeks favored continuing government controls, not only to protect the national economy but also to reimburse the government for private use of a “national treasure” of fissionable materials.”

THE PATENT QUESTION

Not until summer 1953 did the Commission face the perplexing question of 115 what to do about the patent provisions of the 1946 act. Under its terms no private patent rights could be obtained for any invention used in the production or utilization of fissionable material or atomic weapons. The act also required the Commission to declare certain patents affected by the public interest and therefore subject to compulsory licensing. Such a finding was required when the Commission determined that an invention utilized fissionable material or atomic energy and that licensing was necessary to effectuate the purposes of the act. In such cases, the owner was entitled to a reasonable royalty fee. The government monopoly of nuclear technology since 1946 had been so complete that the Commission had had very little opportunity to apply the patent provisions of the act in nuclear power development. For contracts with the industrial study groups established in 1952 the Commission had insisted upon its right to determine the disposition of all patent rights to any invention that might result from the study projects. This restriction not only protected the government from the possibility of having to

pay royalties for inventions made by the companies but also prevented these companies from securing a preferred patent position. Several industrial groups had already told the Commission that they would not accept this restriction on any activities subsequent to their initial studies. °® Lacking any special knowledge of patents, the Commissioners were reluctant to rush into a decision on new legislation. During three meetings in June 1953 they preferred to examine the broad implications of such legislation. On the one hand, they might err by not being liberal enough in encouraging industrial participation; on the other, they might open the doors to industry too quickly with disastrous results for the future. Zuckert feared that eliminating the compulsory licensing requirement for inventions related to utilizing atomic energy might be unwise. Although economic nuclear power appeared to be the first goal of industry, there was no guarantee

THE POLITICAL ARENA

that the situation would not change. Zuckert thought that royalties paid under compulsory licensing would offer industry sufficient incentive for the time being. ’ As a scientist, Smyth had less feel for patent law and administration than did any of his colleagues. He asked why a company should be entitled to a profit from an invention developed with government funds simply be-

cause the specific application of that invention lay outside the field of atomic energy, as the staff recommendation proposed. He was not 1mpressed with the argument that the Department of Defense used such an arrangement in contracts with aircraft manufacturers. Smyth held that the situation was quite different in the case of nuclear energy: virtually all technology had been developed at government expense. Dean, during the last weeks of his term as chairman, took a different view. He thought it was time to open up the broad area of atomic energy 16 use to the normal operation of the patent system. As long as the government was assured a royalty-free right to use these inventions, he thought it would advance development to permit broad patent rights. Marion W. Boyer, who had enjoyed a long career in industry before he became the Commission’s general manager, agreed with Dean. He even went so far as to suggest that it might be necessary to risk giving some companies a preferred position in the industry in the interests of promoting rapid development of nuclear technology. As Dean warned, there might never be a nuclear power industry if the government continued to restrict the dissemination of technical information and denied industry the profit incentive for innovation. Zuckert rejected the suggestion that he lacked enthusiasm for industrial development, but he did confess to deep concern about the possibilities of monopoly by a few large companies, particularly those holding major operating contracts at Commission facilities. He was worried that in the course of their work some of these companies might have developed inventions that technically lay outside the production or utilization of fissionable material. It was possible that some of these inventions were being withheld pending a liberalization of the act’s patent provision. Zuckert suggested that instead of giving broad patent rights in a virtually unexplored field of technology, the Commission should advocate some form of compulsory licensing in the entire field of atomic energy.*® A few weeks later, after Strauss had become chairman, the Commis-

sioners resumed the discussion with their patent advisory panel. All five members were authorities on patent matters and members William H. Davis and Casper W. Ooms had influenced the drafting of the patent provisions of the 1946 act. The advisory panel advocated a middle ground between complete freedom and complete restriction on patent matters. Davis thought the Commission should retain the right to find a specific invention affected with the public interest and should be able to require licensing of such an invention. John A. Dienner, a Chicago patent attorney,

THE POLITICAL ARENA

supported Davis and suggested compulsory licensing for as long as twenty years. Commissioner Murray, who believed the panel was being too conservative, suggested that a five-year limit on compulsory licensing would be sufficient. Without venturing an opinion on that point, Ooms advocated compulsory licensing in principle, although he warned that industry would strongly object.° The Commissioners took all these ideas under advisement in an executive policy conference at White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, late in September. There were no records of the discussion, but the decisions were

clear enough. The Commission’s legislative proposal in October 1953 would have permitted private ownership of fissionable material as well as reactors, but there would be provisions spelling out the safeguards and recovery rights necessary to protect the national interest. No private patent

rights would be permitted for inventions relating to the military uses of atomic energy, and all other inventions relating to the use of atomic energy 117 would be subject to compulsory licensing at the Commission’s discretion for five years.'°

INFORMATION AND SECURITY

The Commission’s proposal was designed to open the way for industrial participation in nuclear development, but it would not affect other provisions of the 1946 act that restricted the flow of technical information on several levels. Not only did the act severely limit the exchange of technical information with other nations, but it also posed troublesome obstacles to disseminating, classified information within the atomic energy establishment and to allied governments in Europe. The Commission had been proposing revision of these restrictive sections of the 1946 act for several years. Although some of these proposals were not much more than “housekeeping” amendments, their total effect would have significantly opened up nuclear technology. !' Section 10 had become one of the most awkward sections of the 1946

act. It provided for a special category of information, called “restricted data,” inflexibly defined to include virtually all atomic energy information of any security significance. The act also imposed special restrictions on disseminating restricted data to foreign nations and required a full background security investigation for all Commission employees, contractors, and persons receiving restricted data from Commission contractors. This last restriction was especially burdensome because it prevented Commission contractors from giving restricted data to military officers or employees of the Department of Defense, although the latter could receive such data directly from the Commission. Section 10 even required a full investigation for construction workers and others who had access only to relatively non-

THE POLITICAL ARENA

sensitive information that was legally in the restricted data category. In autumn 1953 the Commission staff gave some thought to recommending elimination of the restricted data provisions of Section 10 altogether but concluded that repeal would weaken security unless uniform and more effective regulations were established for the federal government as a whole. '”

Perhaps no provision of the 1946 act had caused the Commissioners more anguish than the restrictions of Section 10 on the exchange of information with foreign nations. The act provided that until Congress declared by joint resolution that effective and enforceable international safeguards against the use of atomic energy for destructive purposes had been established, no exchange of information on industrial uses of atomic energy was permitted, although the exchange of basic scientific and technical information was encouraged. In an effort to preserve at least a semblance of the

18 cooperative arrangements that had developed during World War II with the British and the Canadians, the Commission had agreed to exchange basic scientific data in nine specified areas under a formal modus vivendi signed in 1948. As a Commissioner, Strauss had opposed anything but the nar-

rowest possible interpretation of the nine technical areas, and Senator Hickenlooper had led an attack on the technical cooperation program when he learned that information on plutonium was being provided to the British under the modus vivendi. Following the bruising treatment the Commission received during the Hickenlooper investigation in summer 1949, and the revelation of Klaus Fuchs’s treachery early in 1950, the modus vivendi was applied only in the strictest terms, much to the disappointment of the Brit-

ish and the Canadians. In 1951 the urgent need for feed materials to supply the rapidly expanding production of nuclear weapons had led the Congress to adopt an amendment to Section 10 that authorized exchanges of information on all manufacturing operations from the processing of feed materials through the production of fissionable materials. Although the amendment theoretically

established a legal basis for exchanging reactor information, it did prescribe a cumbersome process involving review by the National Security Council, approval by the President, and a thirty-day waiting period before the Joint Committee before the proposed exchange could take place. The amendment also required a finding by the Commission that the recipient nation had adequate security standards to protect the information to be exchanged, but the Commission thought this provision would be very difhcult to apply in any general exchange to technical data. Instead, the staff proposed an amendment that “there shall be no exchange of restricted data with other nations, except as authorized by the Commission upon a finding that the common defense and security will not be adversely affected.” This amendment would obviate the review process and the waiting period and

THE POLITICAL ARENA

would also permit the exchange of weapon information. The same determination by the Commission would be added to Section 5 of the act to permit distributing fissionable material to other nations and to permit persons to engage in producing such materials outside the United States.

THE COMMISSION BILLS

On November 18, 1953, the Commission dispatched the two draft bills to the Bureau of the Budget: the first, the “peaceful uses bill,” would broaden the legal basis for industrial participation in nuclear technology; and the second, the legislative program, would provide for a freer flow of information. In sending a summary of the legislation to Eisenhower, Strauss informed the President that the Commission had hereby complied with

his request of the previous March for recommendations on amending the 119 1946 act." By this time the President was reviewing a third or fourth draft of his Atoms-for-Peace speech and was moving rapidly toward proposals for international cooperation in industrial development of atomic power, which

would require amendment of the 1946 act. The Bureau of the Budget promptly circulated the Commission bills to other executive agencies and departments, but White House demands for a quick response allowed insufficient time for careful analysis, especially by the departments most directly concerned. By December 11, 1953, the White House deadline for completing departmental review, only the Department of State, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Federal Power Commission had submitted comments; of these, the most substantive were the views of the Federal Power Commission. Jerome K. Kuykendall, the commission’s chairman, raised the fundamental question of whether the rather general and unrestricted authority granted to the Atomic Energy Commission in matters of licensing, the sale of by-product power, and the purchase of by-product plutonium from power reactors would not constitute an abrogation of Congressional authority in the policy area. Kuykendall reminded the Commission that the Supreme Court had invalidated Franklin Roosevelt’s National Industrial Recovery Act on this ground. Furthermore, Kuykendall argued, there was plenty of legislative precedent establishing precise criteria for executive departments and agencies to use in determining sale and purchase prices. Kuykendall also criticized the vague language of the peaceful uses bill, giving the Commission discretion in issuing licenses. Instead he proposed mandatory conditions for issuing licenses to protect the Commission

from charges of arbitrary denial or preferential treatment of licensees. Likewise, Kuykendall criticized the failure of the bill to provide specific standards for determining the adequacy of safety and security measures

THE POLITICAL ARENA

proposed by licensees. Both regulatory commissions warned of potential difficulties in the vague and, to some extent, conflicting provisions intended to prevent violation of antimonopoly laws. The trade commission questioned the adequacy of the proposed five-year limitation on compulsory licensing of inventions and urged that the bill provide for mandatory review by the Attorney General of all licenses prior to issuance. !” These and other comments from the regulatory commissions reflected an impressive degree of administrative knowledge and experience that the Atomic Energy Commission and its staff would do well to heed. Although the Commission’s legal staff did not precisely accept every suggestion, most comments were adopted in one form or another. In any case, it was valuable for the Commission to be exposed to the kinds of questions raised. As William Mitchell, the general counsel, reminded the Commissioners on December 7, 1953, the comments from the regulatory agencies

120 raised some of the more important issues that the Commission would face in later stages of the legislative process. Although the bills in their final form were still very similar to the Commission’s early drafts, the legislative proposals were now closely identified with Kisenhower. The Atoms-for-Peace speech on December 8, 1953, had raised nuclear policy to the presidential level, and, in the public mind at least, the proposals for amending the 1946 act stemmed naturally from Eisenhower’s statements before the United Nations. Both the State of the Union and budget messages in January 1954 stressed the importance of

nuclear energy for both peaceful and military purposes and notified the Congress that the Administration was drafting legislation for greater international cooperation in atomic energy development. The draft prepared by the Commission staff did serve as a rough outline for the presidential mes-

sage sent to Congress on February 17, but the message had been completely redrafted in the White House during the preceding two weeks. The legislative proposals were in a very real sense those of both the Administration and the Commission. '©

THE JOINT COMMITTEE BILL

Although the President’s message was a public document, the White House

did not release the draft bills, which the Commission sent directly to the Joint Committee. It did not take Executive Director Corbin Allardice long to determine that, despite all the Commission’s careful drafting, the bills could never be introduced as written because they were still cast as amendments to the 1946 act. The amendment approach had served well a year earlier when the Commission was taking its initial steps toward revision, but as the number of amendments increased, the rationale for the basic

THE POLITICAL ARENA

structure of the act disappeared. It was now apparent to Allardice that the bills should be completely restructured as new legislation. Chairman Cole and Allardice also perceived that whatever legislation the committee introduced should be embodied in a single bill. Holifield and Price had already attacked the 1953 industrial participation bill as giving a few large corporations a monopoly of nuclear technology. It seemed likely that other Democrats in Congress would take up that theme; then the large Democratic minority would succeed in defeating the bill. On the other side, a bill liberalizing the dissemination of information, particularly to foreign nations, seemed certain to come under attack by members of both parties who were wary of international cooperation and who insisted upon protecting the “secret” of the atomic bomb. If, however, one bill combined the two aims, then both groups would have to risk losing those

opposed. 121 parts of the bill they favored when they attacked the provision they

Although Allardice favored a completely new bill, drafting legislation from scratch would be a heavy and relatively unfamiliar task for the Joint Committee. Most mechanical aspects of drafting would fall on George Norris, Jr., who had replaced John T. Walker as committee counsel. Norris, dogmatic on the matter of private enterprise, had extensive experience in industry. Norris’s professional background and ideological leanings suggested that he would be especially helpful in drafting legislation that would bring industry into atomic energy development. Norris was not only intensely interested in removing what he considered the serious infringement of the patent system accomplished in the 1946 act, but he also had strong views on licensing and other administrative procedures. Once Norris had the assignment to draft a new bill, he selected as his model the format and numbering system of the Federal Communications Act of 1934 and copied the licensing provisions of that act almost verbatim.” The Joint Committee draft, however, was by no means the product of Norris and the staff. Cole and Hickenlooper both took a personal interest in the bill and committed themselves to long sessions, sometimes going into the evening, in drafting sections of the bill line-by-line with Allardice

and Norris. When the preliminary draft was completed early in March, Allardice distributed copies to other committee members, and discussions in the larger group continued behind closed doors over the next five weeks.

Although Edward Trapnell, as the Commission’s liaison officer with the committee, was able to follow the general directions of the committee’s thinking through his conversations with Allardice, some of the bill’s provisions surprised the Commissioners when they received a draft on April 5.18 With only three days to review the bill before it was introduced in Congress, Strauss could suggest only that the Commission would present

its views on the bill in executive hearings that were scheduled for early

THE POLITICAL ARENA

May. By that time Mitchell and Trapnell had discussed the bill with the committee staff, and Mitchell had drafted a detailed commentary that Strauss presented at the closed hearings beginning on May 3, 19954."

THE HEARINGS: INFORMATION AND SECURITY

Strauss began his commentary by focusing first on the sections of the Joint Committee bill dealing with information and security. Section 144 of the bill followed the Commission’s draft in many respects by providing greater latitude in international cooperation, but the Joint Committee had made changes the Commission found troublesome. The Joint Committee version prohibited the communication of restricted data relating to the design or fabrication of atomic weapons, except external size, weight, and shape.

22 Strauss told the committee that the Department of Defense objected to this restriction as seriously inhibiting the development of defense plans with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Section 123 of the Joint Committee bill would apply to all international exchanges, for either peaceful or military purposes, the cumbersome

review procedures that the Commission had found objectionable in the 1951 amendment to the 1946 act. The section would require an agreement for cooperation with each nation or regional defense organization, to be approved by the Commission and the President and then to be submitted to the Joint Committee for a thirty-day review. Under questioning, Strauss had to admit that the thirty-day waiting period had never delayed approval of a cooperative arrangement with the British and Canadians. The objection, he said, came from the Administration, presumably on the grounds that the thirty-day waiting period constituted a restriction on the executive powers of the President. Strauss also expressed strong reservations about the Joint Committee’s definition of restricted data, which reinstated the phrase “utilization

of atomic weapons,” a term the Commission had agreed to drop after a series of negotiations with the Department of Defense. He also objected to Section 145(c) that would have required automatic declassification of all restricted data after three years unless the Commission took positive action to retain classification. Strauss held that the millions of classified documents held by Commission employees and contractors made this provision administratively unworkable.”°

THE “PRINCIPAL OFFICER” ISSUE

On the afternoon of May 3, Strauss turned from his prepared statement to a special problem that had been raised by the proposed language in Section

THE POLITICAL ARENA

21. The Joint Committee draft stated that “the Chairman shall be the principal officer of the Commission.” Strauss was concerned because the question of the respective roles of the chairman and the other Commissioners had been disrupting the harmony of the Commission for several months. In January 1954, when the Commission was attempting to sort out the many problems raised by the Oppenheimer case, Strauss had asked both Mitchell and the Attorney General whether he as chairman or the Commission as a whole could function as the “head of the agency” in personnel security matters. Failing to get any very helpful legal opinion, Strauss apparently kept the matter to himself; but when the Commission received the Joint Committee draft of the bill in April, the “principal officer” provision of Section 2] reopened the question of the chairman’s role. Commissioner Murray immediately took up the issue, and, as Strauss reported to Cole, there had been “prolonged discussion” of Section 21 within the Commis-

sion. During April personal animosities between Strauss and Murray over 123 this issue had risen to the flash point as Murray attempted to obtain copies of Strauss’s January correspondence with Mitchell and the Attorney General.?!

In the executive hearing on May 3, 1954, Strauss told the Joint Committee that the Commissioners had all agreed that the 1946 act was unclear in defining the responsibilities of the chairman in relation to those of the Commissioners, but there was still no consensus on how the situation

might be remedied. Strauss himself suggested that an institution as large and complex as the Commission needed a chairman with more affirmative responsibility than the 1946 act provided, but he preferred to let his fellow Commissioners speak first on the issue. Smyth, the senior member of the Commission, agreed that the chairman’s role was ambiguous in the 1946 act, but he was not sure that ambiguity was undesirable; it had provided a certain flexibility, permitting the several chairmen and acting chairmen to establish various working relationships with their colleagues. Smyth admitted that the Commission form of

operation was clumsy and inefficient at times, but he still preferred it to having a single “head of the agency.” Smyth’s real concern was that if the chairman’s position were “too greatly strengthened,” the other Commission-

ers might not have all the information required to exercise their legal responsibilities. 72

The heart of the dispute became apparent when Commissioner Mur-

ray presented his case. Murray said he was concerned about the “trend toward centralization of authority in the Chairman” and that the proposed Section 21] accelerated that trend. He would accept a change making the chairman “the chief administrative agent and spokesman of the Commission” but only if the bill provided that all members of the Commission would have equal authority and responsibility and would have “full access to all information relating to the performance of these responsibilities.” °

THE POLITICAL ARENA

Murray’s statement carried two implications: first, Strauss had proposed the “principal officer” provision in an attempt to dominate the Commission; second, Strauss was withholding information from his colleagues. Cole himself attempted to refute the first charge by assuring the committee

that the phrase had originated, not in a suggestion from Strauss, but in Norris’s research for the Joint Committee bill. The phrase, Cole contended, was common in organic statutes for regulatory commissions. Knowledgeable persons, however, including members of both the Joint Committee and Commission staff, believed that Strauss had proposed the idea. As the hearing proceeded, the committee could begin to appreciate why Strauss might have suggested the provision, if only informally. After considerable prodding by Senator Clinton P. Anderson, Commissioner Zuckert admitted that he believed he had been deprived of information relating to his responsi-

bilities, specifically atomic energy matters discussed in the National Se-

24 curity Council. Zuckert was careful to deny any personal criticism of Strauss; the problem, he said, lay rather in the complexities of administrative structure. In response, Strauss reminded the committee that the Commission had never had regular representation on the National Security Council. As special assistant to the President, Strauss had attended council meetings before he became chairman, and the President had continued to invite him to attend in that capacity even after his appointment to the Commission. Strauss did not think that under the circumstances he could reveal to his colleagues all the atomic energy matters discussed by the council. Senator Anderson agreed that Strauss could hardly do otherwise unless the President chose to give the Commission official representation on the council.

Zuckert, however, argued that the problem was not so easily resolved. The people of the United States had a right to expect that the Commissioners were fully competent to exercise their authority, but in fact they were not privy to all the information related to their responsibilities. The fault lay, not in the President, the National Security Council, or Strauss, but rather in the nature of the Commission’s responsibilities and the structure of the Executive Branch. As Congressman Holifield put it, the Commission was no longer engaged simply in producing fissionable materials and weapons. Under the proposed bill, the agency would have wide influence on policy in both international affairs and domestic economic matters. Zuckert maintained that this new authority would inevitably involve the Commission in politics, and it was unrealistic to expect that the Commission could continue to maintain a nonpolitical or even a nonpartisan stance. The Commission in Zuckert’s opinion would have to become part of the

Administration. He even went so far as to suggest that the President be given authority in the law to appoint a majority of the Commissioners at the beginning of his term on a frankly partisan basis.

THE POLITICAL ARENA

In response to a request from Senator Eugene D. Millikin, Zuckert offered an example of the kind of problem the Commission faced in the area of international affairs. The Commission, Zuckert said, had not been informed in advance about the contents of Eisenhower's Atoms-for-Peace speech. Strauss replied, not quite accurately, that the idea for the speech had crystallized in Bermuda and that the speech had been written on the flight to New York. The discussion then degenerated into a series of indirect exchanges between Murray and Strauss that clearly reflected the personal animosity between them.”*

The significance of the “principal officer” debate, however, lay in Zuckert’s observations that the Commission was heading (or was being led)

into the political arena. The issues raised in the attempt to amend the legislation demonstrated that fact. So did the Commissioners’ growing sense of responsibility in areas previously reserved for the President and his ad-

visers. No less significant was Eisenhower's realization that atomic energy 125 posed critical issues in both domestic and international policy. In fact, much Commissioner dissatisfaction with exclusion from such issues as the Atoms-for-Peace speech or Oppenheimer’s access to classified information resulted from the President’s determination to exercise his authority in matters clearly within the Commission’s responsibilities.

THE HEARING: INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

On May 4, Strauss was finally able to return to his prepared statement. On the provisions of the Joint Committee bill designed to encourage industrial participation Strauss cited a number of technical difficulties, but he mostly objected to the sections on patents and the ownership of fissionable materials. Closely following the Administration’s own reasoning, Strauss held it impracticable to require the Commission, as the Joint Committee bill did, to retain government ownership of all fissionable material, whether produced by the government or by licensees in private facilities. Because the Joint Committee version would also require the government to pay the licensee just compensation for the material, the government would in effect be undertaking a long-term and open-ended commitment to purchase all commercially produced plutonium, whatever the price. If the committee insisted on government ownership, Strauss suggested that the Commission at least be given authority to decline to license reactors that would produce materials beyond the government’s needs. Strauss also thought it wise to limit to its own maximum cost of production the price the government would have to pay. Allardice, who knew Strauss well, did not hesitate to probe the reasoning behind the Commission’s opposition to government ownership. After

THE POLITICAL ARENA

weeks of drafting, the committee had concluded that government ownership would be necessary to maintain adequate controls over fissionable materials, particularly plutonium, which could be used for weapons. The Com-

mission had opted for private ownership mainly to avoid an open-ended government commitment to purchase plutonium produced in_ privately owned facilities, especially if military needs for plutonium should be satisfied at some time in the future. This concern had taken on new dimensions in July 1953, when Strauss had reopened the question of encouraging industry to build dual-purpose reactors, which would produce significant amounts of plutonium. Allardice doubted that dual-purpose reactors would have any important role or that military demands for plutonium would decline in the near future. He also claimed that private ownership would both require industry to invest large sums in fuel inventories and discourage private participation. As a practical matter, both Allardice and Holifield 26 feared that the prospect of placing weapon quantities of fissionable material in private hands was enough to defeat the bill in either house.”° The patent question was always complicated, but the point at issue in the May hearings was clear-cut. The committee bill, largely reflecting the strong ideological views of Cole and Norris, abolished the special patent

provisions of the 1946 act and failed to provide for a transition period of compulsory licensing of patents developed under government contract. Cole took the position that any infringement, even a five-year period of compulsory licensing of patents, violated constitutional rights and threatened the very root of American technological superiority. Strauss and the Eisenhower Administration were no less interested in preserving the patent system, but they were also concerned about preventing a monopoly of the new industry by a few large companies that already had an advantage as Commission contractors. Without support from either the Commission or the Republican administration, Cole faced a tough battle on the patent question, given the strong Democratic minority that advocated an even longer period of compulsory licensing. ”°

Predictably private ownership of reactors and fissionable materials received almost unanimous support at the public hearings beginning on May 10, 1954. Jerome D. Luntz, editor of Nucleonics magazine, cited an informal survey of business leaders to show that private ownership of reactors was the most popular feature of the Joint Committee bill. He admitted that an industry probably could be started with leased fuels, but he saw no disadvantages in private ownership of fissionable materials. Representatives of the American Bar Association, equipment manufacturers, electric utility companies, and the Federation of American Scientists all took the position that private ownership was essential if atomic energy was to join the private enterprise system. Opinions were nearly as unanimous in opposing Section 102 of the

, THE POLITICAL ARENA bill, which required, as the 1946 act had, a report on the social, political, economic, and international aspects of any practical commercial use of atomic energy before the Commission could issue any licenses for this purpose. The opposition, mostly from equipment manufacturers and electric utilities, followed closely the reasoning expressed in private by the Commissioners six months earlier: the writing and clearance of such a report through the federal bureaucracy would be so difficult and time-consuming that it would greatly delay the entrance of nuclear power into the civilian economy. Throughout most of the hearings, Congressman Holifield stood alone in his insistence that the Commission had an obligation to inform the Congress of the potential impact of a new technology. Only in the closing hours of the hearings on May 19 did Leland Olds, a former chairman of the Federal Power Commission and now a public-power lobbyist, suggest that

such a report would be vital if electric power from the atom was to be

integrated “into the total power policy of the country.” ?’ 127 The question of compulsory licensing received the most prolonged discussion in the public hearings. Although the issue was directly associated with patent policy, the debate centered largely on the dangers of monopoly. Only the spokesmen for the patent law association examined the legal and constitutional questions of infringements on patent rights. Industry representatives saw little possibility of a patent monopoly in atomic energy, and representatives of small businesses saw no advantage at all in a compulsory system of cross-licensing. On the other side, spokesmen for organized labor, the public-power movement, and rural electric companies saw the absence of compulsory licensing provisions as extending the tight monopoly that private utility companies had allegedly established in the electric power industry. Holifield stressed the monopoly theme in questioning witnesses and pointed out two instances in which antimonopoly language in the 1946 act had been deleted. Even though the discussions of compulsory licensing were scattered through the hearings, Holifield succeeded in maintaining continuity in his attack on the industrial participation provisions of the bill. 78

DIXON-YATES: A POLITICAL DIVERSION

In a closed session with the Joint Committee on May 5, 1954, Casper Ooms, the patent authority, had reflected that both the committee and the Commission were probably placing too much stress on the patent issue. It

was prudent to include provisions in the bill to meet all likely circumstances, but Ooms did not see the patent sections as determining the future of the nuclear industry.”” The frequent discussions of patents, and particularly the merits of compulsory licensing, during the hearings were merely

THE POLITICAL ARENA

outward symptoms of a deeper concern: Would the federal government or

private industry develop and then control this promising new source of energy?

Through most executive sessions and open hearings on the atomic energy bill, the Joint Committee had been able to steer away from this larger and highly volatile question. But already at work within the Administration were forces that would tie the bill to the public-versus-private power issue. On June 4, when the committee concluded its long discussion of the principal officer issue, Holifield raised a question about the proposed Section 164, which would extend the authority granted the Commission in the 1946 act to enter into contracts to provide electric utility services “in connection with the construction or operation of the Oak Ridge, Paducah, or Portsmouth installations.” Holifield noted the difficulties that a group of private utility companies had encountered in completing a power plant at

128 Joppa, Illinois, across the Ohio River from the Commission’s Paducah gaseous-diffusion plant. The press and TVA supporters had come to refer to the sorry stories of construction delays and cost overruns at Joppa as the “Ebasco fiasco,” a term that Holifield used in his remarks. He went on, however, to describe his concern over a proposed new contract between the Commission and “the Dixon-Yates group” to supply 600,000 kilowatts of power in the Memphis, Tennessee, area. Holifield noted that the Commission did not propose to use the power from the Dixon-Yates plant for its own facilities but rather to meet TVA requirements in the Memphis area. He announced his intention to involve the committee’s right to analyze Section 164 as the basis for a full-scale discussion of the Dixon-Yates proposal. °°

The bizarre proposal, which became infamous as “the Dixon- Yates contract,” had its origins in the primary tenets of the Administration and, in fact, in Eisenhower's personal philosophy of government. In his remarks at the dedication of Garrison Dam in North Dakota on June 11, 1953, the President had spoken of the need to disperse the powers of the Executive Branch both functionally and geographically. By accepting the federal government’s role in building giant dams, Eisenhower warned that it was “part of a great conservation work that all parts of our nation must benefit from and must participate in.” The following week in a news conference, the President made clear that he was thinking of TVA when he had spoken of

the dangers of “creeping socialism.” He thought it was necessary to reevaluate a situation in which general tax revenues could be used to provide cheap power to one section of the nation.*' TVA, as a regional power system financed with federal funds, seemed to do just that. As the President saw it, there were only two alternatives. Either the federal government could establish more TVAs across the country until the nation’s entire electric utility system was government-owned, or TVA would have to live on its own

THE POLITICAL ARENA

resources without help from federal taxes; unquestionably, the President preferred the second alternative. A perfect opportunity to launch the President’s attack on “creeping socialism” came in autumn 1953, when TVA requested 1955 budget funds to begin work on a coal-fired power plant on the Mississippi River at Fulton, Tennessee, to supply the rapidly growing power needs of the Memphis area. The President and Budget Director Dodge opposed this request, not only as an unwise extension of TVA but also as a threat to the Administration’s campaign for budget cuts. When the Bureau of the Budget asked TVA Chairman Gordon R. Clapp what the agency would do if the Administration

refused the request, Clapp replied that the TVA board would probably recommend that some power then being provided for the Commission’s gaseous-diffusion plants be released to meet TVA’s growing needs.” Clapp’s reply was probably little more than a ploy to convince the

Bureau of the Budget that building the Fulton plant was the only possible 129 solution, but Dodge took the idea seriously. On December 2, 1953, he met with Strauss to discuss the possibility that the Commission could obtain additional power from private sources to operate the final sections of the Paducah plant still under construction. Strauss immediately asked a senior member of the Commission’s staff to approach James W. McAfee, president

of Electric Energy, Incorporated, which was already supplying private power at Paducah from the Joppa plant. Although McAfee did not think his own company could accept a contract, he suggested that the Commission consult Edgar H. Dixon, president of Middle South Utilities, which was interested in supplying the Memphis area. On Christmas Eve, Rowland R. Hughes, assistant director of the Bureau of the Budget, informed Strauss that the TVA budget would include no funds for the Fulton plant on the expectation that the Commission would find a private source to relieve TVA of 500,000 to 600,000 kilowatts of the Commission’s power requirements.

Hughes decided to include a statement to this effect in the President’s budget message to Congress, with the proviso that the bureau would consider supplemental appropriation for the Fulton plant if the Commission’s efforts failed.* The President’s reference to the possibility of a supplemental appropriation probably represented an attempt to disarm those who would claim that the Administration’s plan was designed to kill TVA; but the reference also seemed to recognize the difficulties in carrying out the plan. Until January 6, no one at the Commission except Strauss and one staff member

knew of the plan. Both Murray and Zuckert were outraged when they learned that Strauss had been involved in discussions for more than a month without their knowledge, and Nichols was less than enthusiastic about the proposal on the realistic grounds that it would cost the Commission more money for power under a contract less firm than that with TVA.

THE POLITICAL ARENA

Furthermore, both McAfee and Dixon argued for a direct contract between

TVA and a private utility to provide power at Memphis, where it was needed, rather than at Joppa, where it would be hard to dispose of excess power if the Commission contract were canceled. Clapp, however, refused to consider any plan that would require TVA to purchase power from a private utility. The only solution seemed that proposed in Hughes’s office on January 20, 1954: namely, the Commission would negotiate a contract with a private utility to build and operate a power plant across the Mississippi River from Memphis, and the Commission would release an equivalent amount of power being supplied by TVA’s Shawnee plant near Paducah. At Hughes’s request, Nichols discussed the idea with both Dixon and Eugene A. Yates of the Southern Company. On February 20, Dixon and Yates agreed to submit a proposal that would accomplish the complex arrangement the Administration had devised.** 130 THE COMMISSION AND DIXON-YATES

As in the origins of the Oppenheimer case and the Atoms-for-Peace speech, the Commission was in fact something less than an enthusiastic participant in devising the Dixon-Yates plan. Among the Commissioners probably only Strauss saw TVA as a threat to private enterprise,** and even he was not

happy about the prospect of the Commission being used as an agent to accomplish a policy aim that had nothing to do with atomic energy. Strauss

certainly would look with disfavor on any plan that would threaten the power supply to the Commission’s production plants or raise costs substantially. Only Nichols saw real merits in the proposal, in an entirely technical

sense. As an engineer, he thought it reasonable to build the plant near Memphis where the power was needed. Murray, as an engineer from the electric utility field, might conceivably have come to a position close to Nichols’s and thus on Strauss’s side of the question, but Strauss had once again aroused the suspicions of his colleagues by failing to apprise them of

his discussions with the Bureau of the Budget. Perhaps Strauss in this instance and others had avoided his colleagues because he had his own reservations about the Administration’s proposal and did not wish to be placed in a situation of defending his superiors. This explanation seemed likely in the Dixon-Yates case. Because it did not yet involve the President personally, Strauss could not hope to justify his independent action on the basis of his confidential role as a presidential adviser. When the two utility executives received Hughes’s invitation to submit a proposal, they were given only a few days to complete it. They proposed to form a corporation that would finance and construct a new power plant in the Memphis area under a twenty-five-year contract with the Commission (the limit of the Commission’s authority under the Atomic Energy

THE POLITICAL ARENA

Act). The annual capacity charge would be based on an estimated plant cost of $200 per kilowatt. The Commission would be required to pay the annual capacity and energy charges, to compensate the corporation for all taxes, and to arrange for interconnecting with the TVA system. The Commission’s reaction to the proposal was ambivalent at best.

Although the proposal would save the federal government at least $120 million in capital costs, the Commission would have to pay about $4 million

per year more than the existing TVA contract required, and less than $1 million of that amount would be returned to the government in federal taxes. Furthermore, because the power would come from a plant not yet built, it would be less reliable than the TVA power already available and under contract. Because these features of the proposal were distinctly disadvantageous to the Commission, any determination to accept the proposal would have to be made by “higher executive authority or the Congress” on the basis of overall advantages to the nation. The Commission’s letter to the 13] Bureau of the Budget on March 3 did not make clear that both Smyth and Zuckert were opposed to even conditionally accepting the proposal.*° But if Clapp or any Commissioners hoped that the relatively unfavorable provisions of the Dixon- Yates proposal would result in its rejection,

they were to be disappointed. Hughes requested Nichols at once to work with the Federal Power Commission in negotiating a more favorable arrangement. The revised proposal submitted by Dixon and Yates on April 10 did scale down the proposed charges substantially, in part by reducing the estimated cost of construction from $200 to $149 per kilowatt. Nichols also succeeded in incorporating provisions that would require the corporation to accept half of any escalation in construction costs up to about $10 million more than the estimated $107 million and all added costs above $117 million. Under this proposal, the added annual cost would be less than $2 million above that of the existing TVA contract, all of which could be attributed to taxes.*! In commenting on the new proposal, the Commissioners reiterated

to Hughes their concerns about assuring the reliability and continuity of power at Paducah. They argued that TVA should bear all costs for power above those in the existing TVA contract to avoid a Commission subsidy of TVA. Once again, Strauss requested that either the Budget Bureau or Con-

gress determine whether the proposal was appropriate. Commission discussion of the contract, however, brought out new objections. Smyth and Zuckert pointed out in a letter to Hughes, now director of the bureau, that “not one kilowatt” from the Dixon-Yates plant would be used in Commission production facilities. The Commission would be assuming a twentyfive-year commitment to support a project “irrelevant” to its own mission. Smyth and Zuckert called the proposal “obviously incongruous” and “a reversal of the sound philosophy” incorporated in draft legislation recently sent to the Congress to remove from the Commission responsibilities not

THE POLITICAL ARENA

essential to its mission. The two Commissioners made clear, however, that “af the President or the Congress directs the Commission to accept such a responsibility, we will endeavor to discharge it fully.” ®

DIXON-YATES: THE ISSUE DRAWN

As long as the discussion of the Dixon-Yates proposal remained within the Executive Branch of the government, the Administration could control the situation. But once the matter came to the attention of the Congress, Dixon-

Yates would become a political issue. Although the Joint Committee learned of the Dixon-Yates idea early in January, probably from Commissioner Murray, there was no real basis for raising the issue until something specific appeared in written form. The inevitable occurred during the Con-

132 gressional review of the 1955 budget. By the time the Commission submitted the revised Dixon-Yates proposal to the Bureau of the Budget in mid-April, the House Appropriations Committee had already approved both the Commission’s and TVA’s budgets, and the Senate subcommittee was waiting only for a decision on the Fulton plant to complete its action on the TVA budget. Although Nichols did everything he could to avoid a commitment until the Administration had had time to analyze the new proposal, he was forced to submit a short statement on the proposal to the Senate subcommittee on April 17. That provided Senator Albert Gore of Tennessee just enough ammunition to raise some questions about DixonYates in the Senate on April 21. Gore asked why, in light of the poor performance of private industry in building the Joppa plant, the government had decided on a complicated arrangement to produce replacement power two hundred miles from the Paducah plant at a cost exceeding that of the existing TVA contract. The senator could see only three reasons: “to strike a death blow forever” at the Fulton plant, to move private utilities into the TVA area at Memphis, and to subsidize a private-power company through the Atomic Energy Commission. Gore alerted the Administration to the farreaching implications of the proposal, warning “that it will be a story many times told if the proposal is accepted.” *? The Administration could have no clearer signal that Dixon-Yates would embroil the Commission in a fullfledged fight on the issue of private versus public power. Congressman Holifield had fired the opening salvo at the DixonYates proposal in the Joint Committee hearings on June 4. Having gained Cole’s assent to probe the question in detail as a part of the committee’s review of Section 164 of the proposed bill, Holifield launched a full-scale attack on Dixon-Yates on June 17. By that time two events had sharpened the issues. First, as Nichols revealed in the hearing, on June 16 the President had directed the Commission to start negotiations with Dixon and Yates. Second, there was almost no support for the proposal within the

THE POLITICAL ARENA

Commission. The Smyth-Zuckert letter to Hughes had leaked to the press

on June 4. In the afternoon session on June 17, Murray made clear his opposition to the proposal on the grounds that it was not a logical function for the Commission. Murray’s testimony was of special significance because, as he noted, he had long supported private-power development and had been responsible in part for private building of the Joppa plant. Murray’s statement also meant, as Senator Gore was quick to point out, that a majority of the Commissioners opposed the idea. Campbell, who squirmed under Holifield’s persistent questioning, would say only that he agreed with Nichols’s analysis of the proposal. That was not much of an endorsement because Nichols, as general manager, claimed only that the proposal was a technically sound approach to accomplishing the Administration’s objectives, which were beyond his responsibility. Campbell’s ambiguous stance left Strauss the proposal’s sole supporter. Strauss based his support on the

argument that government competition in “the power business” was unfair 133 to private industry because of tax and investment advantages enjoyed by TVA. The savings claimed by TVA were illusory in Strauss’s opinion because they were ultimately paid for by general tax revenues.“ Thus, Strauss found himself virtually alone on the Dixon-Yates proposal, in a position resting almost entirely on a political argument.

A NEW BILL FROM THE JOINT COMMITTEE

Once Holifield introduced the Dixon- Yates issue on June 4, 1954, the attention of not only the Joint Committee but also the full Congress gravitated quickly to the controversial issues that the proposal raised. Only with difficulty did Chairman Cole keep the discussion on the provisions of the Joint Committee bill for two more days. The final all-day sessions on June 17 and 18 were devoted exclusively to Dixon- Yates. Although the intrusion of Dixon- Yates posed obvious problems for further action on the bill, the hear-

ings had proved useful. Relations between the Joint Committee members and the Commissioners had been good; the discussions had for the most part resulted in a free and open exchange of ideas without too much concern about prerogatives and established positions. Cole’s patience as the presiding officer softened the impact of Holifield’s sometimes strident and partisan inquiries. *!

To the casual observer, the new bill that Cole and Hickenlooper introduced in the House and Senate on June 30, 1954, appeared almost identical to the earlier Joint Committee drafts. But close examination revealed significant changes in some sections. In the international area, the Commission could take some comfort in the softening of the provisions of Section 123, which had required Commission approval of the security procedures of foreign nations and which had given the United States a unilat-

THE POLITICAL ARENA

eral right to withdraw from bilateral agreements on peaceful uses of atomic energy. More ambiguous was the wisdom of other changes adopted at the suggestion of Senator Bricker. The words “or group of nations” had been deleted from every section relating to international cooperation so that such activities would be limited to single nations with which bilateral agreements had been negotiated under the conditions specified in Section 123.” Also at Bricker’s suggestion, the committee had added a new provi-

sion, Section 124, which authorized the President to negotiate an international arrangement establishing an atomic pool with a group of nations. The new section appeared to implement the President’s suggestion in his Atoms-for-Peace speech, but any such arrangement would have to comply

with the provisions of Section 123. In other words, membership in the international pool would be limited to nations with which bilateral agreements had been negotiated. Furthermore, any “international arrangement” 134 for an atomic pool would have to take the form of a treaty, which would have to be approved by the Senate, or a joint resolution, which would have to be submitted to both Houses of Congress. As Holifield and other Democrats would point out, Section 124 would surely exclude the Soviet Union from the atomic pool and would make any pool under United Nations auspices impossible. In the eyes of Bricker and probably Strauss, Section 124 would retain rigid safeguards over distribution of fissionable materials and would keep any atomic pool firmly within Congressional control. On matters of security, the June 30 bill provided a clear-cut definition of restricted data that reverted to the position originally taken by the Commission in autumn 1953. The Joint Committee’s definition would retain as restricted data all information related to the “design, manufacture, or utilization of atomic weapons” and eliminate the complicated provisions insisted upon by the Department of Defense for joint determinations by the two agencies in removing weapon information from the restricted data category. The new draft also abandoned the earlier provision for automatically declassifying restricted data. Retaining the Commission’s proposal to permit private ownership of production and utilization facilities, the committee draft excluded the private ownership of fissionable materials originally endorsed by the Commission. Apparently Allardice’s contention that government ownership was necessary to assure effective control of the material was persuasive. Having opted for government ownership, the committee had to meet the Commission’s valid objection that the bill in its original form would have required the government to provide “just compensation” for all fissionable materials produced in privately owned reactors. The committee addressed this problem by changing Section 52 to read that the government would pay “a fair price” for all such material; Section 56 set forth a number of considerations that the Commission could use in determining fair price in order to avoid

THE POLITICAL ARENA

open-ended commitments to purchase all material at whatever price might constitute “just compensation.” Section 53 of the revised bill was greatly expanded to cover another question raised by continuing government ownership: the distribution of fissionable materials for research and development, medical research, and therapy, and its licensing for industrial uses. The new section prescribed

the uses for which material could be distributed, the criteria to be met before licenses could be issued, the basis for reasonable charges for using fissionable materials, and the conditions to be included in licenses. To reflect recent accomplishments in developing thermonuclear weapons, the committee substituted the words “special nuclear materials” for the more limited phrase “fissionable materials” wherever it appeared in the bill. The revised language of Section 51 would permit the Commission to declare other materials such as tritium or deuterium to be special nuclear materials

if it so desired. 135

On two controversial points in the April draft the June 30 bill provided reasonable compromises. First, the Section 21 provision establishing the chairman as “the principal officer” of the Commission had been modified along the lines that Murray had suggested; now the chairman would be the “official spokesman” of the Commission, but the section also provided that each member of the Commission would “have equal responsibility and authority” in all actions of the Commission. The second point of contention involved Section 102, which required the Commission to file a report on the practical value of atomic energy for peaceful purposes before any license could be issued. As a compromise, the June 30 bill provided that the Commission would have to make a written finding that at least one facility had been sufficiently developed to be of practical value for industrial or commercial purposes before a license would be issued for that type of facility. But the Commission was no longer required to file a report that would predict “the social, political, economic, and international effects of such use.” The mere finding of practical value would be much easier to make.

One of the most striking changes in the June 30 bill was the complete reversal of the patent position that Cole and Norris had set forth in the April draft. Although Cole continued to believe that compulsory licens-

ing of patents was both unwise and unconstitutional, the majority of the committee was impressed by arguments for cross-licensing advanced by the

Commissioners and their patent advisers. Once the Joint Committee had decided to introduce compulsory licensing, it was necessary to draft all the legal paraphernalia to cover patenting and licensing of inventions or discoveries in the nonmilitary field. For this purpose the committee staff made its only adoption of language from the Commission’s own peaceful uses bill;

the exact words of the Commission draft appear nowhere else except in

THE POLITICAL ARENA

Sections 152(a) and 152(b) of the June 30 bill.“ To this basic structure the committee added other provisions drafted by Ooms and the Commission’s legal staff.*° These sections covered the qualifications of license applicants, the Commission’s procedures in granting licenses, the payment for royalty fees, and various patent technicalities. Compulsory licensing was to be in

effect for a period of five years. Section 156 also reinstated the patent compensation board, which had earlier been rendered unnecessary by eliminating compulsory licensing. The June 30 bill, running to more than one hundred pages, was long and complex. Not all members of the Joint Committee understood the im-

plications of all its provisions, nor could they find their way through the labyrinth of nineteen chapters and dozens of cross-referenced sections. But the bill as it was presented to the Congress for debate did reflect to some extent the views of American industry and labor unions, public interest

136 groups, scientists and engineers, the Administration and the Executive Branch, and finally the committee itself. The bill had resulted from more than a year of deliberations in the Commission, the Executive Branch, and the Joint Committee. In most respects it seemed to accomplish the original purpose of making nuclear technology a part of American life. The DixonYates controversy, however, raised some doubt as to whether the very process of developing new legislation had brought into play forces that would destroy all chances for the bill’s adoption. In any case, the fate of the bill and the future of the nation’s atomic energy program now rested with the House of Representatives and the Senate.

THE CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

It was already apparent on June 30 that Cole and Hickenlooper would face a tough fight in guiding the bill through Congress. Although the two leaders could count on strong support from the Eisenhower Administration, the Republican majorities in both houses were razor-thin, four votes in the House and only one in the Senate. In addition to the four-vote margin, Cole did have the advantage of the rigid rules for House debate, which tended to give the majority the advantage. The Joint Committee chairman also had a good working knowledge of the bill and sufficient prestige and ability to lead the bill’s supporters in the House. Hickenlooper faced a much more difficult task in the Senate. On a purely partisan basis, his chances were no better than fifty-fifty after Wayne Morse, the Oregon independent, announced on June 18 that he saw the bill as an Administration attempt to give the nation’s atomic energy program to American monopolies. Nor could Hickenlooper count on many conservative southern Democrats to support the Republican cause in this case. The Ad-

THE POLITICAL ARENA

ministration’s decision to pursue the Dixon-Yates contract had been interpreted in TVA country as an attempt to destroy the public-power enterprise. Tennessee’s two Democratic senators, Albert A. Gore and Estes Kefauver, had already joined forces with Lister Hill and John J. Sparkman of Alabama and with Warren G. Magnuson of Washington in a stated objective of using the impending Senate debate on the atomic energy bill as a way of defeating the Administration on Dixon- Yates. The Joint Committee’s decision to accept Senator Bricker’s amendments to the international sections also threatened the future of the bill.

Not only did the Bricker amendments raise the charge that the “atomic pool” provision in Section 124 was a “phony” but they also would inevitably

introduce into the debate the touchy subject of the United Nations. As the State Department had warned, Section 124 could easily tie the bill to strong sentiments in the Congress against the United Nations and international cooperation in general. In fact, liberal Democrats like Holifield and Senator 137 John O. Pastore of Rhode Island saw Section 124 as a new form of the recently rejected Bricker amendment to the Constitution, which would have restricted the President’s authority in international affairs.” Although Hickenlooper served as principal spokesman for the bill in the Senate, the fate of the measure rested mostly with William F. Knowland of California. As majority leader, Knowland determined the schedule of debate in the closing weeks of the Eighty-third Congress, which planned to adjourn on July 31. Working closely with the Administration, Knowland wanted to delay action on the bill long enough so that he could use the pressure for adjournment to limit debate while still leaving enough time to complete action on the bill. Thus, Knowland did not strongly resist the efforts of the TVA senators to prolong debate during the first two weeks of July 1954, as they launched full-scale attacks on the Dixon- Yates proposal. When Hickenlooper formally began debate on the Joint Committee bill on July 13, Knowland still appeared willing to let the Dixon- Yates opponents have relatively free rein.*’ Although Hill, Kefauver, Gore, Morse, and Magnuson were energetic and determined, they could not expect to stop Senate action on the bill by themselves; Knowland anticipated that within a few days the TVA group would run out of steam. Knowland’s hopes for passing the atomic energy bill, however, took a decided downward turn on July 15, when “a liberal coalition,” as the press called it, began to form in opposition to the bill. On that Thursday afternoon, a number of representatives of consumer, farm, and labor organizations met by chance in the corridors of the Senate office building and discovered that they had a common interest in defeating the Dixon- Yates proposal. This group quickly coalesced around the TVA senators led by Lister Hill, and within a few days a hard core of opposition to Dixon- Yates had been organized to include about twenty senators. The small group of

THE POLITICAL ARENA

TVA senators had now been enlarged to include those who saw Dixon- Yates as a threat to public-power interests and to the old progressive fight against monopoly. * The strength of the new coalition became evident on Friday, July 16,

when Knowland was unable to keep the debate on the atomic energy bill from drifting off into prolonged attacks on Dixon-Yates. The proposal itself

had become a legitimate issue in the debate when Senator Clinton P. Anderson, speaking for the Democratic minority of the Joint Committee, introduced an amendment that would have limited the Commission’s contracting authority under Section 164 to the purchase of power to be used directly in Commission facilities. Homer Ferguson of Michigan countered with an Administration amendment that would specifically authorize arrangements like the Dixon-Yates proposal.” By Saturday, July 17, the new coalition of Democrats began to take 138 hold as senators from beyond the TVA area dominated the attack on DixonYates. Responding to Democratic suggestions that the domestic development sections of the bill be dropped in favor of legislation enacting the Atoms-for-Peace plan, both Knowland and the President reiterated their determination to hold out for the entire bill, even if the Senate had to resort to twelve-hour sessions. On Tuesday, July 20, the Democratic threat took specific form when Herbert H. Lehman of New York introduced the Commission's original peaceful uses draft as a substitute for the Joint Committee bill. The February draft, which had not previously been printed in Congresional documents, contained none of the provisions for industrial participation in the Commission’s original companion bill or in the measure before

the Senate. Under Knowland’s threat of round-the-clock sessions, the Democratic coalition controlled the floor all day Wednesday while they mustered support for a decisive vote that evening on the Dixon- Yates amendments.” Adoption of the Ferguson amendment by a vote of fifty-six to thirtyfive and defeat of the Lehman substitute showed that the Administration could drive the Joint Committee bill through the Senate without sacrificing the Dixon-Yates proposal. The vote also convinced the public-power coalition that its best weapon would be the filibuster, which would endanger not only the atomic energy bill but also the Administration’s farm and foreign aid programs. As William H. Langer of North Dakota took the floor for a long disquisition on the dangers of monopoly, senators retired to cots set up in the cloak rooms.*! With the help of Wayne L. Morse, the record-holder for filibuster speeches, the coalition had more than enough resources to control the floor around the clock for the rest of the week. It also became clear on Thursday that the Democrats had enough votes to amend the bill on issues other than Dixon-Yates. Within a matter of hours late in the afternoon, the Senate adopted an amendment presented by Edwin C. Johnson of Colorado grant-

THE POLITICAL ARENA

ing the Commission authority to produce and market electric power generated in its own plants and another by Guy M. Gillette of lowa providing that public utilities and cooperatives be given preference in purchasing this power. Failing repeatedly to limit debate by unanimous consent agreement or to prevent minor amendments, Knowland early on Friday morning re-

sorted to the tactic of tabling any amendment on which debate was not limited. Successful in this effort, Knowland also introduced a petition of cloture, to be voted on early in the following week.” In an attempt to bring greater pressure on the Democratic opposi-

tion, the Administration decided to push the bill through the House on Friday, July 23, 1954. In contrast to the Senate debate, Cole and the Republican leaders in the House were able virtually to exclude extraneous matters such as Dixon-Yates. Members of the Joint Committee from both parties dominated the four hours of general debate and for the most part

reiterated the arguments presented during the Joint Committee hearings. 139 The debate on amendments under the five-minute rule telescoped into a few hours the days of argument in the Senate. Reflecting the Republicans’ firmer control of the House, Cole and his associates were able to defeat House equivalents of the Anderson and Johnson amendments. The House also rejected several amendments proposed by Holifield to assure the Commission a commanding position in developing nuclear power for commer-

cial purposes. The Democrats were successful only in adopting a preference clause in Section 44 on the sale of by-product power from Commission facilities and two amendments regulating leases of public lands for uranium mining.

By this time the debate was moving into the evening hours, a circumstance relatively rare in the House. With encouragement from Knowland and Vice-President Nixon, who had come over to the House side of the Capitol to lend support, Cole kept the debate on target. He quickly pushed through several technical amendments and then introduced the only substantive change he would propose: to strike the compulsory licensing provisions from the bill. Holifield and other Democratic members of the Joint Committee were quick to point out that the committee had already rejected Cole’s proposal, but the House sustained Cole decisively by a vote of 203 to 159. By three o’clock on Saturday morning, the clerk read the last section of the bill; it was evident that the bill would pass with only the five amendments already adopted. Only a parliamentary maneuver delayed the vote until the following week.” Prospects for the bill in the Senate now rested on breaking the filibuster. Knowland’s threat of cloture was more a psychological than a practical instrument. Much more significant was a request late Saturday evening by Lyndon B. Johnson, the minority leader, for a unanimous consent agreement providing that no further amendments could be introduced after noon on Wednesday, July 28. Morse quickly killed the proposal by objecting,

THE POLITICAL ARENA

but Johnson’s proposal suggested that the Democratic leadership in the Senate was growing impatient. Johnson, with strong influence over conservative Democrats, could threaten the public-power coalition. Gore and the TVA senators also faced pressure from southern Democrats willing to support some public-power amendments but unwilling to do so during the filibuster. Knowland and the Administration, sensing a shift of opinion on the Democratic side, stood firm for the bill.** After the cloture petition was defeated on Monday morning, July 26,

the coalition began to accept two- or three-hour limits on the debate on each amendment presented, and the Senate spent the rest of the day considering a dozen such proposals, eight of which were adopted. Only one, proposed by Senator Gore, related to the Dixon-Yates issue. The only other successful amendment of significance was proposed by Robert S. Kerr of Oklahoma to extend the period of compulsory licensing from five years to

140 ten. Knowland’s hopes for a vote on the bill, however, were dashed late on Monday, when Morse resumed the filibuster that he continued through the night. Not until Tuesday evening was Knowland able to bring the thirteen-

day debate to an end after more than 180 hours of discussion, a Senate record for a two-week period. The first vote, fifty-seven to twenty-eight, was

close to that on the Ferguson amendment, which specifically authorized the Commission to enter into the Dixon- Yates contract. Thirteen Democrats joined forty-four Republicans in voting for the bill. Opposing the bill were twenty-five Democrats, two Republicans (John Sherman Cooper of Kentucky and Langer of North Dakota), and Wayne Morse. Senator Anderson of New Mexico was the only member of the original Democratic opposition

to vote for the bill.

THE BILL BECOMES LAW

The conference committee appointed to resolve differences in the Senate and House versions of the bill were with one exception members of the Joint Committee: for the House, Republicans Cole, James E. Van Zandt of Pennsylvania, and Carl Hinshaw of California and Democrats Holifield and Carl T. Durham of North Carolina; for the Senate, Republicans Knowland, Hickenlooper, and Bricker of Ohio and Democrats Johnson of Colorado and Anderson. Cole and the Republicans clearly dominated the conference sessions during the first week in August. The conference report released on August 6 retained the Ferguson amendment, which specifically authorized the Dixon-Yates contract and watered down the provisions granting public utilities and cooperatives a preference in purchasing by-product electric power produced in Commission facilities. The preference clauses sponsored by the Democrats and already adopted in both houses were to be effective “at all times”; in the conference report, they were applicable “in-

THE POLITICAL ARENA

sofar as possible.” The conferees also eliminated the Johnson amendment, one of the public-power coalition’s few victories in the Senate, which gave the Commission authority to produce and market electric power from its own facilities. Holifield and the public-power group envisioned that under the authority granted by the Johnson amendment the Commission would be able to build and operate full-scale nuclear power plants that would provide a “yardstick” for commercial plants, such as TVA facilities had done for private utilities using conventional fuels. It was precisely this kind of extension of the TVA idea that the Eisenhower Administration was fighting. The conferees also retained a provision sponsored by New England’s two Democratic senators, John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts and John O. Pastore of Rhode Island, which would give private utilities in high-cost power areas, where public power was not available, a preference in purchasing by-product power from the Commission. All these changes stemmed di-

rectly from the public-versus-private-power fight and had only a marginal 141 impact on the Commission.”

A second and equally psychological victory for the Republican members of the conference committee was the wholesale reincorporation of the Cole-Norris patent philosophy employing the identical language of the

Joint Committee’s April draft and the Cole amendment adopted in the House on July 26. The Cole-Norris approach deleted all the language in Section 152 and the following sections that provided for compulsory crosslicensing of patents on nonmilitary inventions determined by the Commission to be affected with the public interest. In place of the nonmilitary uses section, Cole substituted his original language, which would limit patent licensing to inventions made under Commission contracts. As a sop to the Democrats, Cole and the Republican conferees did accept the restoration

of two provisions in Section 155 on eligibility and standards for patent licensing (now to be possible only in Commission-related activities) and a new Section 156, which specifically prohibited the monopolistic use of patents granted with the Commission’s permission on nonmilitary inventions. The language was archaic, but both sides understood the issue—whether the government or private industry was to control the development of atomic energy for civilian purposes. Representative Holifield and Senators Anderson and Johnson refused to sign the conference report, and the Democrats assailed it in both Houses. First to fall was the “insofar as practicable” restriction in the preference clauses. Cole disclaimed any “sinister” motive in the conference committee’s action. The qualification, he maintained, merely recognized that preference could not be granted in every situation. The Democrats, asking who was to determine what was “practicable,” attacked the qualifi-

cation as a Republican attempt to wipe out the hard-fought and meager victory of the public-power coalition. Knowland, plainly hoping to avoid the delay that would be caused by a second conference, suggested a joint

THE POLITICAL ARENA

resolution deleting the objectionable phrase. The Democrats, however, obviously would not accept Cole’s deletion of the compulsory licensing pro-

visions, and the Senate voted on August 13 to reject the conference report.’ The second conference, during the second week of August, centered on the compulsory licensing question. Cole, who remained adamant in his opposition to compulsory licensing, finally saw that he was fighting for a lost cause. The public-power senators were determined to revive the filibuster over this issue, and the Administration was not willing to lose the entire

bill over a point that seemed more symbolic than real. Because Norris remained as determined as Cole in his opposition, Allardice asked Francis P. Cotter of the Joint Committee staff to work out a compromise: Cole’s version of Section 152 governing patents in Commission-related activities would stay in the act but so would the language providing for compulsory

142 licensing for a period of five years. The compromise removed the last roadblock. Following House acceptance of the second conference report on August 17, President Eisenhower signed the act into law on August 30.°8

In the narrow sense of partisan politics the outcome was a victory for the Republican Congress and for the President. Eisenhower had inspired the legislation. The Republican leadership of the Joint Committee had written a strong bill that would break the government monopoly of the atom and make possible some cooperation with other nations for both military and civilian purposes. With the bill well in hand, Eisenhower and his advisers had not hesitated to launch the Dixon-Yates proposal, which was intended to circumscribe the growth of federal power systems. Republican leadership in the Congress had, with the President’s unflagging support, embodied the Dixon- Yates proposal in the law, fought off the filibuster, and then carried through every key provision of the legislation. For the Commission as a government agency, the legislation accom-

plished virtually all the aims set forth by the staff in autumn 1953. In addition to the much-discussed provisions for industrial participation and international cooperation, the 1954 act effected many other revisions of the original law. Most of these never attracted attention in Congressional hearings or debates, but they were vital to the efficient administration of the agency's business. In the eyes of some veterans on the staff, the Commission had paid a high price for the new law. Along with the new authority for industrial and international cooperation came inevitably more restraints by both the Executive and Legislative branches. The President, and not the Commission, would have the final voice in approving international agreements, and the Joint Committee would have an opportunity to criticize, if not invalidate, international agreements before they became effective. The Commission also lost to the Joint Committee a measure of independence that only experienced administrators could appreciate. Never discussed in Congressional hearings or debates but strongly opposed by the Commission

THE POLITICAL ARENA

was a provision in Section 261, which would require Joint Committee authorization of all appropriations for plant and equipment. To this degree, the Joint Committee acquired the power of the purse in addition to its already impressive influence on policy matters, and the Commission to the same degree lost a portion of its independence. The Commission, like nuclear technology, was beginning to move from its private world into the mainstream of American life. Years later, former Commissioners would recall the passage of the 1954 Atomic Energy Act as the “high-water mark” of the Commission. Perhaps there were other events of equal or greater significance, but there is no question of the historical importance of this legislation. Old-timers

would see it as the turning point in the history of the Commission—a unique moment full of hope and promise for the future. 143

CHAPTER 6

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

Two hours before dawn on a chilly March morning in 1953, Newsweek correspondent Leonard Slater huddled with nineteen other newsmen in a dirt trench on Yucca Flat within the Commission’s Nevada Proving Grounds. Slater and the others had been selected to accompany an infantry unit into advance positions just 3,500 yards from a steel tower holding a test version

of a full-scale atomic bomb. Like hundreds of observers before and after him, Slater endured hours of boredom as he awaited the detonation, but there was something special about this test: Slater and the troops were

closer to ground zero than anyone had been since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks.

Shivering more from the anticipation than from the cold, Slater heard the final countdown over the public address system, blinked in momentary shock as the nuclear fireball lit the trench brighter than the noonday sun, braced himself for the shock wave, and listened for what seemed like minutes for the dull roar generated by the detonation. Scrambling from

the trench at the “all-clear” announcement, Slater and his companions watched in awe the purplish fireball swirling upward from the desert floor. Within minutes the familiar mushroom cloud, nearly five miles high, was forming where the shot tower had been. At Alamogordo in 1945 the first atomic test had drawn from observ-

ers comparisons with scenes in the apocalypse. Litthe more than seven years later at Yucca Flat, Slater detected a tone of condescension among the troops. One officer thought the trip had not been worth the effort. Others compared the blast unfavorably with the flash and concussion produced by

a standard artillery piece. In a matter of minutes soldiers with radiation monitoring equipment were calmly moving out in jeeps in the direction of ground zero.!

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

This striking change in reactions to the bomb was more than just a matter of time. Oppenheimer and his associates at Alamogordo had seen Trinity in terms of their own intimate experiences in building the bomb and their knowledge of its size and physical characteristics. It had been truly terrifying to witness what their groping with theory and experimental evidence had produced. For those who came to Yucca Flat, however, the bomb was not a finite experiment in physics. It had become in the popular mind a specter of enormous power, of superhuman dimensions, seemingly greater even than the ordinary forces of nature. For the troops the detonation of a very small atomic bomb, witnessed at a distance of about two miles, did not measure up to the image that popular literature had evoked in their minds. As with all physical phenomena, the meaning lay in the eyes of the beholder.

But the 1953 tests gave thousands of Americans an opportunity to

witness the power of the atomic bomb directly, while millions of others 145 around the world through the eyes of television, newsmen, and photographers could experience the bomb in terms they could understand. This time the bomb was not being tested solely on warships as at Bikini or on military

equipment, but on such familiar objects as automobiles, white frame houses, fences, telephone poles, power lines, packaged foods, and aspirin. These artifacts from the everyday world provided a human scale against which both ordinary citizens and public officials could measure the significance of the bomb. Furthermore, the tests were being conducted in the continental United States, where their weekly progress would be reported in the press, on radio, and on television. The bomb would no longer be a vague, mysterious instrument of infinite disaster but rather a dangerous and immediate reality in American life.

UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE

The test series that began on March 17, 1953, was the product of more than a year of planning by the Commission, the Department of Defense, and the Federal Civil Defense Administration (FCDA). Even before the Tumbler-Snapper series was concluded in spring 1952, Los Alamos began to formulate requirements for another continental test series designated as Operation Upshot. Although no one knew exactly what experimental devices would be tested, the Los Alamos scientists were certain that the first detonation of the thermonuclear device and the huge fission weapon called King would raise many questions that could be answered only by further experiments. The Nevada Proving Grounds was too close to urban areas (sixty-five miles from Las Vegas) for testing multimegaton devices like Mike or even fission devices, like King, which exceeded 100 kilotons; but

it was far more economical and convenient than Enewetak for tests of

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

smaller yields, which would provide essential information for designing the components of both thermonuclear and fission weapons. Twenty shots in

two previous Nevada tests in 195] and 1952 had demonstrated the value of a continental test site.”

The other half of the test series was Operation Knothole, which would include a variety of experiments for both the Department of Defense and the Federal Civil Defense Administration to determine the implications of nuclear detonations for both people and equipment. The enormous expense and complexity of nuclear tests made it imperative to integrate the objectives of both Upshot and Knothole. There were special advantages of a dual test series in Nevada, given the space to deploy thousands of troops and military equipment and the relative ease to set up civil defense experiments. But a dual test series also had disadvantages, particularly for the Commission’s weapon laboratories. The efficient conduct of Knothole re-

146 quired firm schedules set long in advance; but Operation Upshot was essentially a series of field experiments in a rapidly developing technology and, therefore, constantly subject to change. As early as the Greenhouse tests in 1951, the Los Alamos scientists had discovered the inhibiting effect of dual operations when they were unable to take advantage of continuing research because a design change to increase yield would have upset plans for both tests of military effects and biomedical experiments. Dissatisfied as the scientists were with the prospects of a dual test series, there was no way to avoid it.®

By early 1953 the test program was set (see the following list of Operation Upshot-Knothole test shots). Los Alamos would have five shots primarily related to diagnostic experiments, although all would involve civil defense or military effects or both. The new weapon laboratory at Livermore

had scheduled two specialized experiments to check novel design principles for weapons; neither test was encumbered with military or civil defense projects. Finally, Los Alamos had scheduled three shots primarily related to effects. Five of the six diagnostic shots would be fired on threehundred-foot towers for precision in data collections. The sixth diagnostic shot was planned to verify yield only and could be air-dropped to fire at a relatively high altitude in order to reduce the uptake of ground dust in the radioactive cloud. Two of the tests of military effects were also to be airdropped to simulate combat conditions for the troops; the third military shot was an atomic artillery shell to be fired from a 280-millimeter cannon.‘

Date Yield

Shot 1953 Type (Kilotons) 1. Annie March 17 Tower 16.0 2. Nancy March 24. Tower 24.0 3. Ruth March 31 Tower 0.2

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

Date Yield Shot 1953 Type (Kilotons)

4. Dixie April 6 Airdrop 11.0 o. Ray April 11 Tower 0.2 6. Badger April 18 Tower 23.0 7. Simon April 25 Tower 43.0 8. Encore May 8 Airdrop 27.0 9. Harry May 19 Tower 32.0 10. Grable May 25 Gun 15.0 11. Climax June 4 Airdrop 61.0 THE CIVILIAN DIMENSION

Along with the twenty newsmen and the troops in forward positions for the 147 March 17 shot was Val Peterson, the newly appointed Federal Civil Defense Administrator. Peterson’s presence was just one more way of demonstrating the importance of civil defense activities in the Upshot-Knothole tests. For more than a year the civil defense agency had been planning for this day. Originally hoping to have a shot of its own, the agency, like the Commission and the military services, had finally accepted the necessity for a combined operation.

The day before the first shot, Harold L. Goodwin, the director of FCDA’s operations staff, briefed the press on the experiments set up on Yucca Flat. None had proved more fascinating during the press tour of the site than the two frame houses built 3,500 and 7,500 feet from ground zero. These two-story, center-hall dwellings with basements were typical of thousands of American homes. They were complete except for interior finish, plaster, and utilities. Government-surplus furniture, household items, and

fully-dressed manikins were installed in the houses to measure damage. House No. |, closest to ground zero, was expected to be completely destroyed by blast and had been equipped with reflective paint and venetian blinds to keep it from burning. The house at 7,500 feet would be damaged but probably not destroyed. Two types of blast shelters, located in the base-

ments of the houses, were designed to protect occupants from the heavy debris load of the collapsing structure. Eight other shelters designed by FCDA for backyard use had been built nearby. Also of great press interest were the fifty automobiles of various types, colors, and operating conditions placed at different distances and orientations from ground zero; some contained manikins. Goodwin told the reporters that these tests were especially important because they would indicate whether the family car would provide any effective protection against the radiation, heat, and blast of a nuclear bomb.°*

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

The third major FCDA project was the testing of four types of cali-

brated instruments that would record the angle of incidence of thermal energy from the bomb and thus help to determine its exact air-zero position. Such information would be essential to civil defense officials in directing

rescue teams and estimating damage and casualties. FCDA had also planned several classified projects for later shots in the series to test blast effects on standard wall panels and partitions, to determine the effects of

radiation on lungs, and to measure the reliability of radiation survey instruments.

Important as the technical results of the civil defense experiments would be, they would have even greater value in giving the general public some impression of what an atomic attack could mean in everyday life. For this purpose the Commission and FCDA had jointly organized an elaborate public information plan for the March 17 test and several others later in

148 the series. More than 250 newsmen, 360 state governors and mayors, and scores of county and civil defense officials had been invited to visit the site before the Annie shot, observe the test, and if possible inspect the results. Reporters and photographers would have an excellent vantage point from a rise dubbed “News Nob” on the edge of Yucca Flat, and there was to be live radio and television coverage. The shot on March 17 was successful in both its technical and informational aspects. The countdown went smoothly, and the yield was close

to the planned fifteen kilotons. House No. | was destroyed by blast as planned, and the high-speed camera shots of its destruction provided a series of dramatic photographs that were widely published in newspapers and magazines. House No. 2 suffered some damage but remained intact as predicted. The battered manikins provided graphic evidence of the weapon’s vicious power. The basements afforded good protection against radiation, and the simple basement shelters were effective against debris. The family automobile would be relatively safe outside a ten-block radius for a small weapon of this type, provided that some windows were left open to prevent the roof from caving in on the passengers. Most heavily damaged cars that did not burn and were not radioactive could be driven away soon after the shot.°®

News coverage of the shot was excellent, as expected. Most daily newspapers and weekly news magazines covered the story with special reports and photographs. A television audience estimated at eight million viewers had a somewhat less than satisfactory impression of Annie, particularly in establishing some sense of scale, but reporter Chet Huntley’s somber descriptions of the drama from the forward trenches were judged impressive. Most newspapers gave their readers adequate factual accounts of

the test and pointed up the implications for civil defense. Some even reminded readers that the absence of total destruction resulted from the rela-

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

tively small size of the device and the long distances from ground zero to the experiments and the observers. Probably more significant than the first news stories were the followup articles by state and regional civil defense officials in their local newspapers. These articles were important in translating the effects of Annie into terms that had meaning in neighborhood surroundings and stressed the substantial value of even the simplest precautions in the event of a nuclear attack. These local appeals were supported naturally by Peterson’s hardhitting plea for national action on civil defense with Eisenhower’s strong endorsement.’ With careful planning Peterson and his associates had been able to capture the nation’s attention with the March 17 event, and they were able to sustain much of this interest as the tests proceeded during spring 1953. 149 THE MILITARY SPHERE

Vital as the civil effects tests appeared to be for national security, the military implications for Upshot were even more critical. Largely hidden from public view was the vast complex of government organizations, military

units, scientific laboratories, and private contractors that made the tests possible. Unlike the Pacific tests, directed by a joint military task force for the Commission, the continental tests at Nevada were entirely in the Commission's hands. The line of authority led through the headquarters division of military application, headed by Brigadier General Kenneth E. Fields, to Carroll L. Tyler, manager of the Commission’s Santa Fe operations office, who served as test manager. Because all previous continental tests and all but two in Upshot depended on research at Los Alamos, officials of that laboratory under the direction of Alvin C. Graves were in charge of scien-

tific aspects of the tests. Herbert F. York, a young physicist who would later be officially designated director of the new Livermore laboratory, worked with Graves in staging the two Livermore tests. Military operations were coordinated through the Albuquerque field command of the Armed

Forces Special Weapons Project, established in the Pentagon soon after World War II to handle atomic energy matters for all three military services. ®

Shots scheduled for Upshot and other series at the Nevada site in the 1950s typically involved various purposes, and as many as possible were incorporated in a single shot. Some shots included fundamental research in nuclear physics that would test the feasibility of new theoretical approaches to weapon design. Others provided technical data for full-scale production engineering of a new weapon. Often shots were planned to explore phenomena that could affect the efficiency and performance of weapons but that were not susceptible to theoretical analysis. Sometimes shots

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

were designed to provide a basis for choice between two or more theoretical methods of weapon improvement or to gain time by eliminating the need for

months of calculations and laboratory experiments. In the Upshot series several shots were designed to test components that would be used in new weapon designs. Only occasionally was it necessary to proof-test complete or stockpiled weapons, and such tests were combined whenever possible with studies of weapons effects, for both civilian and military purposes. In most instances the shots consisted of highly instrumented experimental devices rather than complete weapons. ° In terms of direct participation, the most important parts of UpshotKnothole for the armed services were the weapon effects tests. Under the

technical direction of the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project, these tests were designed to reveal tactical problems involved in the use of nuclear weapons, to determine the effects of radiation and blast on military

150 equipment, and to give combat troops experience in maneuvers with nuclear weapons. Exercise Desert Rock V involved more than fifteen thousand ground troops of the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force. The placement

of combat units in advanced positions, as was done for the Annie shot, continued during the series. In subsequent shots, officer volunteers occupied positions as close as two thousand yards from ground zero. Larger numbers of combat troops were stationed about twice that distance from the blast. The military services also provided vital support functions for the

tests as they had in all such exercises since the Sandstone tests in the Pacific in 1948. The Air Force furnished weather services, about twentyfive aircraft, and one thousand civilians and military personnel in direct support of the series. At least fifty combat and other operational aircraft were involved in dropping test devices, cloud sampling and testing, radiological terrain surveys, photography, training, and data collection.

HAZARDS OF CONTINENTAL TESTING

The Nevada Proving Ground did offer substantial advantages over Enewetak or Bikini for testing nuclear devices and defense against nuclear attack, but the rapidly expanding use of the continental test site also posed an ever increasing threat to the American public. The potential hazards in continental testing had been weighed against defense requirements before the Alamogordo test in 1945 and had been considered again by the Commission before the first Nevada tests were authorized in 1951.

In planning and executing the twenty continental tests before Upshot-Knothole, the Los Alamos scientists had acquired considerable skill

and experience in predicting the potential hazards and minimizing them. That these capabilities had reached a level of some sophistication was

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

clearly evident in the special fifty-page section on “Public Safety in Continental Weapons Testing,” which the Commission published as part of its thirteenth semiannual report to the Congress in January 1953. To be sure, there was a certain amount of special pleading in the title of the report and its contents. The purpose of the report, after all, was to reassure the American people, not to present an even-handed analysis candidly describing the uncertainties involved. But in light of the extreme secrecy that still prevailed in Commission activities at that time, the report was surprisingly detailed and informative. It reviewed the reasons for establishing the Nevada Proving Grounds in the first place; it described in a straightforward manner the flash, airblast, and radiation effects of nuclear detonations; and it clearly acknowledged radiation as the most serious hazard. The report honestly discussed the origin and rationale for maximum permissible doses of radiation, both on the surface of the human body and internally, and the

implications of fallout in terms of both somatic and genetic effects. The lol report concluded,

There is negligible hazard to property from blast; that proper warnings and patrolling have prevented any injury to humans from heat, light, or blast; and that the highest levels of radioactivity released by fall-out of particles are well below the very conservative standards fixing the amounts of radiation that can be received externally or internally by the human body without harming the present or later generations. '°

But the public report did not reveal the growing uneasiness within the test organization over the difficulty of holding radiation effects below the standards set forth in the report. About the time that the public report was released, Tyler convened a special committee at Los Alamos to appraise the operational future of the test site. The committee included not only Los Alamos scientists and military officers from Washington but also the Commission’s directors of public information and biology and medicine.

After concluding that the Nevada Proving Ground was “vital” to weapon development, the committee found that considerations of public safety were the major restriction on the type and size of devices tested at the site and that this restriction was related mostly to yield, placement of the device or mode of delivery, and resulting fallout near the site. There would have to be “a very strong, overriding reason” to justify a surface or subsurface shot exceeding one kiloton. A tower shot over thirty-five kilotons should be fired “only under very stable, predictable [weather] conditions.” Airbursts should not exceed fifty kilotons until the laboratory could further assess the probability that a fuse failure might turn an aerial device into a surface shot. The committee admitted that luck as well as good planning had prevented fallout radiation from exceeding the established standards in past tests. To reduce this possibility in the future the committee recommended

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

new firing sites, less frequent use of each site, aluminum towers, higher towers, and soil stabilization at the base of the towers. !! Because plans for Upshot-Knothole were virtually complete when the Tyler committee met, the report probably reflected an effort to evaluate the hazards posed by the series rather than an attempt to establish a ceiling for

shots scheduled in the series. In any case, the report, an internal document, was not sent to the Commission in Washington until May 1953, when

two-thirds of the series had been completed. Certainly Graves and the test group did not think it necessary to comply literally with the guidelines stated in the report. Of the seven tower shots scheduled for UpshotKnothole, four were expected to reach or exceed the thirty-five kiloton ceiling recommended by the committee. Because all the shots were in several respects experimental, it was not possible to predict yield exactly, and the

actual yields in some cases exceeded and in others fell short of the esti152 mates.'? The test group clearly expected substantial fallout beyond the test site, but drawing on experience in earlier series there was confidence that the monitoring teams could quickly detect fallout patterns after each shot in the Upshot-Knothole series. In theory, the plan was to warn people in communities to take shelter if significant fallout appeared to be heading in their direction; in fact, however, it was not always possible to contact isolated prospectors and ranchers. Although offsite fallout was in some way related to yield, the relationship was not linear. It was possible to exceed the thirty-five kiloton limit without significant offsite fallout. The test group had greatly improved its ability to determine from weather data the probable direction and speed of the radioactive cloud and thus to select firing times that would result in a minimum of offsite fallout. Despite these precautions, however, some off-

site fallout occurred from seven of the ten shots originally scheduled for the series. !° There was no easy way to determine the health hazard of this fallout,

but with the intention of providing a conservative margin of safety the test

group had established a maximum permissible weekly exposure of 0.3 roentgen (R), a physical unit of measure defined in terms of the ionizing effect of X-rays. This limit was derived from standards recommended by the National Committee on Radiation Protection and the International Commission on Radiological Protection in 1950 on the basis of data accumu-

lated over several decades of industrial and clinical experience. The best authorities at that time believed that the human body was capable of repairing most if not all somatic damage produced by 0.3 roentgen over a one-week period. In fact, Commission scientists believed that a rapidly delivered dose of about 25 roentgens of whole-body radiation was required to produce permanent damage in humans. Because Upshot-Knothole was planned to occur over a period of three months, or thirteen weeks, the test

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

group simply extrapolated the 0.3-roentgen figure to cover that period. Thus, the guideline for the series became 3.9 roentgens. ' Also to be considered was the genetic damage that might be caused by this amount of radiation. As the Commission’s semiannual report informed the public in January 1953, scientists agreed that genetic mutations were directly proportional to dose, with no recovery or repair processes at work. Daily or weekly repetitions of such doses could produce a noticeable increase in the number of mutations among offspring. The determination of the effects of radiation on mutation rates was a difficult process that required experiments with large numbers of laboratory animals over many years. Preliminary data then available on mice suggested that exposing the germ cells to 80 roentgens would double the natural rate of human mutations. Obviously the less radiation received by the genes, the better. The test group never considered the 3.9-roentgen figure as an out-

side limit that could be approached without concern. The large uncertain- 153 ties about the effects of radiation required that exposures be held to the lowest possible levels. The first precaution was to fire the shot only under weather conditions that would preclude the radioactive cloud from moving rapidly from the test site and in a direction that would carry it over populated areas. Second, the test group routinely used an elaborate system of fixed air-sampling stations and mobile teams to monitor fallout in the area within 200 miles of the test site. Beyond that distance mobile units and 121 stations manned by the U.S. Weather Bureau collected air samples for analysis at the Commission’s Health and Safety Laboratory in New York City. '°

FALLOUT IN UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE The test group’s monitoring teams were able to determine fallout patterns very

quickly after each shot. The radioactive cloud from the first shot, Annie, did move due east from the test site and dropped fallout on St. George, Utah, but the Commission reported that the maximum radiation level was no more than 0.026 roentgens per hour, far below the guidelines set for offsite exposures. Nancy, the second shot, was somewhat larger than Annie and apparently dumped substantial amounts of fallout in sparsely populated

areas northeast of the test site. Because monitoring teams had been stationed only in communities and took only a limited number of readings along roads, it was impossible to know the precise radiation levels in the hinterland. In its public releases the Commission merely reported that there had been no fallout in populated areas, although it was admitted that the small number of residents at Lincoln Mine, Nevada, had been requested to remain indoors for two hours while radiation from fallout ex-

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

ceeded 0.5 roentgens per hour. The third through the sixth shots produced no radioactivity measurable in inhabited areas. !° More radiation exposures, however, did occur during the high-yield shots that concluded the series. A wind shift at the time Simon was detonated on April 25 carried the radioactive cloud over two highways in Nevada. When fallout reached 0.46 roentgens per hour, Graves ordered road-

blocks set up, and about forty vehicles with interior readings of 0.007 roentgens per hour were washed at government expense. '” By far the most serious was the fallout from the Harry shot on May 19. Postponed three days because of unfavorable weather, Harry was fired under what seemed to be perfect conditions. But a wind shift and a slight increase in wind velocity spread fallout in a pattern about fifty miles square over populated areas east of the proving ground. For the second time in a month roadblocks were set up on major highways to monitor motor vehicles.

154 At 9:10 a.m., about four hours after the shot had been fired, readings as high as 0.32 roentgens per hour were being recorded at the roadblocks. At that time Edward S. Weiss, the Public Health Service officer stationed in St. George, called the sheriffs office and radio station to warn people in the area to take cover. Local schools kept children indoors during the morning recess, and the washing of contaminated cars in St. George was sus-

pended. By 9:40 a.m. most of the population in St. George was under cover, and the community came to a standstill. The all-clear came before noon when the first officials from the test site arrived to look over the situation. Because of the understandable ten-

sion among the residents, Weiss was ordered to remain in the area for several more days. During that period he considered collecting milk samples from local dairies to check for radioactivity, but because of the uneasiness in the community Weiss concluded that such a survey might create alarm. For that reason he limited his investigation to a few samples of milk purchased in local stores. From measurements at St. George the test group later estimated that the maximum amount of external exposure that could have been received at St. George was 6.0 roentgens and 5.0 roentgens at Cedar City. Scientists later estimated that children living near the test site received thyroid doses from iodine-131 ranging from inconsequential levels to those possibly causing some thyroid abnormalities. !*

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CONCERNS ABOUT FALLOUT

Although many people in these Utah communities were unnerved by the incident, they were reassured by statements from the test group that the radiation exposure had been below hazardous levels. Most people did not complain about having to remain indoors or waiting at roadblocks. There

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

was neither public alarm nor open protest in the communities, but individuals did complain that fallout had caused physical injuries or disabilities. Only two very mild Congressional inquiries resulted from the Simon and Harry incidents, and both took the form of requesting reassurance rather than registering protest. In both instances, Commission officials and the test group were able quickly to convince the congressmen that adequate precautions had been taken to assure public safety. Very few newspapers

outside the immediate area covered the incidents, and most of these stressed the Commission’s reassurances. Incomparably more troublesome were the deluge of letters and flurry of newspaper and magazine articles speculating on whether the seemingly unusual number of severe tornadoes occurring across the nation that spring were caused by the Nevada tests. The Commission’s public information staff was still answering tornado inquiries long after the fallout incidents had been forgotten. '”

Public alarm had been avoided, but the Commissioners were pri- 155 vately concerned about the fallout from the larger shots in the series. On May 13, 1953, John C. Bugher, director of the Commission’s division of biology and medicine, reported that the total potential integrated dose to inhabitants in thinly populated areas following the Simon shot had been as high as 10 roentgens. A new dimension to the fallout problem developed when a heavy rainout near Troy, New York, the following day delivered a potential integrated dose of 2 roentgens. The Commissioners expressed concern about the unexpected high yield of Simon (forty-three kilotons). Dean observed that there had been an understanding that high-yield shots would be fired outside the United States, but he admitted that the Commission had no firm criteria for deciding such issues. ”° The Commissioners also received troubling reports that sheepmen who customarily wintered their herds north of the test site had encountered

unusually heavy losses after trailing their sheep to an area west of Cedar City, Utah, for shearing during April. Losses ranged up to 30 percent for newborn lambs and 20 percent for ewes or mature sheep. Because the winter range had received substantial fallout from the Nancy shot on March 24, there was a possibility that radioactive fallout could have been a factor in the sheep deaths. Unfortunately most of the dead sheep had been disposed

of before veterinarians and radiation specialists arrived on the scene, but many surviving sheep in the affected herds showed lesions on the face and back after shearing. State and local veterinarians were unable to diagnose the malady, and those from the Public Health Service and Los Alamos were not certain whether the lesions were caused by fallout. Arrangements were made to sacrifice some of the surviving sheep for detailed biological studies

and further radiation experiments on sheep were started at the Commission’s Los Alamos and Oak Ridge laboratories.”! The fallout question became more pertinent the following week when

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

the Commission considered a proposal to add an eleventh shot to the series.

Design work had just been completed at Los Alamos on some new principles that would be used in the Castle series in the Pacific early in 1954 to develop a deliverable thermonuclear weapon. Because Los Alamos had completed this work earlier than expected, it would be possible to test the new principle at Upshot-Knothole rather than in a special single-shot series in the Pacific in autumn 1953. Testing the device in Nevada would have significant advantages over

a Pacific test in terms of saving time and money, but the yield would be more than sixty kilotons, about 30 percent greater than Simon. When Dean expressed grave concern about local fallout or more distant rainout, Graves could give the Commission only partial assurances. First, Simon had made possible a more reliable estimate of yield. Second, the proposed test would be an airdrop rather than a tower shot, a factor that would greatly reduce 156 fallout. Third, because it would be the last shot in the series, the test group could afford to wait for the best possible weather conditions. ””

The Commission approved the eleventh shot on May 18, but the decision was clouded in uncertainty the following day when the first reports of fallout from Harry were received in Washington. Zuckert immediately requested a statement of the weather criteria that would be considered the minimum acceptable for the eleventh shot and raised the whole question of

the test policy at the Nevada site. He considered the fallout from Simon and Harry as posing “a serious psychological problem” that would require the Commission to consider alternatives to continental testing. Zuckert also noted that the Commission’s request to the President for authorization to

use additional fissionable material for the eleventh shot had not alerted Eisenhower of the magnitude of the shot or the possible dangers involved. At Zuckert’s suggestion, Dean discussed these considerations with Strauss at the White House. Strauss expressed greatest concern over the possibility

that heavy fallout or rainout might jeopardize future testing in Nevada, primarily because he was impressed by the substantial advantages of conducting the test there. Strauss took the matter to Eisenhower, who with some misgivings approved the test.”°

The eleventh shot, Climax, fortunately performed close to predictions. Although the yield was sixty-one kilotons, offsite fallout was far below that of Simon and Harry, and the test provided the information needed

for the Castle series. These results, however, did not end the matter for Zuckert. The weather criteria that he had requested for Climax were vague

at best and did not reach the Commission until the day after the shot. A week later Zuckert suggested the need for a full-scale review of “the highly interrelated public relations and safety problems that we have created” at the Nevada site. The committee appointed to study these problems should,

in Zuckert’s opinion, include experts in public information as well as in weapon and related technologies.*

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

THE QUESTION OF CONTINENTAL TESTING

To Zuckert and others the problems raised by the increasing size and num-

ber of Nevada tests were more a public relations concern than a safety problem. This was not to say that safety was considered unimportant—far from it. But safety could be managed by technology; public relations could not. Tyler, whom the Commission designated chairman of the study group, followed Zuckert’s lead in giving public relations a prominent place in the investigation. He invited Morse Salisbury, the Commission’s director of public information, to serve as a member of the committee, and Richard G. Elhott, the Commission’s public information officer at Los Alamos, had a key role as secretary of the committee. Other members included Bradbury and Graves from Los Alamos, Bugher on radiation matters, and veteran specialists from other government agencies on weather and blast effects.

Without any written instructions from the Commission, Tyler as- 157 sumed that his job was to produce a more detailed study than the one completed in January 1953 and that any conclusions should be supported by comprehensive reports or documentation. To get the committee started, Tyler proposed that it examine various questions under the general headings of the radiological problems of testing, both in the immediate test area and at greater distances: factors determining the amount of fallout; the blast and the shock problems; the need for the continental test site; public education; and the kind of conclusions the committee should expect to reach.

Elliott saw the task as supplementing the earlier report with UpshotKnothole experience, preparing a definitive study of the value of continental tests, and recommending guidelines for future continental testing, specifically in terms of public safety and education. Much groundwork was to be covered by eleven studies assigned to committee members and others for completion in August 1953.?° By late September, the Tyler committee had unanimously concluded

that a continental test site was necessary and that the Nevada Proving Grounds was still the best site available. The committee was also confident that operational controls at the site could be strengthened “to provide con-

tinuing assurance of public safety” and believed that a better education and information program was necessary.

One issue to be resolved before Nevada testing could be resumed was whether the Upshot-Knothole series had caused the sheep kill. Commission personnel at the test site were fully aware that the future of conti-

nental-testing might hang on the results of the investigations already started. The studies completed during autumn 1953 concluded that neither the level of external radiation, nor radiation burns on the sheep’s skin, nor radiation of the sheep’s thyroid from iodine-131 in the fallout could have

caused the deaths. The supporting data presented by the Commission’s laboratories were impressive and seemed conclusive. [t seemed much more

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

likely at the time that the excessive number of deaths resulted from the extremely dry weather that left the herds badly undernourished that spring. Although the results were favorable, Commission officials in the field threw the best possible light on the findings, not only to show the general public that the tests could be conducted safely but also to reassure the Commissioners, some of whom remained unconvinced. When a group of sheep owners brought suit for damages against the government in 1955, the court found in favor of the government on the basis of the unanimous opinion of expert witnesses that there was no evidence

that the fallout had caused the sheep deaths. Twenty-seven years later, however, in 1982 the same judge who had tried the original case vacated his decision on the strength of evidence that the Commission officials had perpetrated a fraud upon the court by suppressing the contrary opinions of some scientists. ~°

158 Although the point was not made explicitly, the committee’s task had obviously changed from that originally conceived by Tyler. No longer was the committee expected simply to assess Nevada operations; the Commission now was demanding a solid justification for continental testing at the

Nevada site. Personnel at the test site had been cut back to a skeleton force, and the Commission had refused to authorize any further construction until the Tyler committee had completed its report. To make certain that the committee’s findings were fully documented, Tyler requested committee members and others to prepare additional reports and expand those already written. When completed in February 1954, the report consisted of a 62-page document backed up by twenty-five studies totaling more than 220) pages. *’

Although the Tyler committee reaffirmed its September recommen-

dation that tests be continued at the Nevada site, the report did propose certain restrictions on test operations. First, the committee set forth guidelines for justifying the need for shots, controlling or reducing fallout from potentially hazardous shots, prohibiting marginal shots under questionable weather conditions, and imposing yield limitations on surface, tower, and airborne shots. Second, the committee proposed a “planning maximum” of

ten to fifteen shots in one year at the Nevada site. Third, the committee advocated lowering the standard for offsite exposure from 3.9 roentgens over thirteen weeks to the same amount integrated over an entire year. The Commissioners were inclined to accept all the recommendations

of the Tyler committee, but all except Murray wanted the views of the Commission’s principal advisory committees before taking final action. Murray could see no reason to delay preparations for the next series at Nevada. Consideration by the advisory committees centered on the planning maximum. The advisory committee on biology and medicine favored a maximum of ten shots per year with no more than three high-yield tower shots. The general advisory committee, on the other hand, could find no

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

sound reason for limiting the number of shots. A better approach, the committee thought, was to exercise the greatest precautions possible to protect

test personnel and the public but to let operational needs determine the number of shots. Finally, on June 30, 1954, more than a year after Zuckert first raised the issue and on the last day of his term, the Commission ap-

proved the continuation of Nevada tests, subject to the restrictions proposed by the Tyler committee but without limiting the number of tests in any one year.”® On this basis Tyler would make plans for the next continen-

tal test series in 1955.

RAW MATERIALS

Upshot-Knothole had helped to make nuclear weapons something of a re-

ality for many Americans, particularly those living in the vicinity of the 159 Nevada Proving Grounds, although the tests revealed almost nothing about

the vast network of production and manufacturing plants that had been created to produce nuclear weapons. The far-flung complex of mines, oreprocessing mills, feed material plants, gaseous-diffusion plants, production reactors, chemical separation plants, metal fabrication plants, and weapon component and assembly plants was still largely concealed behind the security barriers established by the Atomic Energy Act. Only cleared observers, and then only those with a real “need to know,” were privy to concise information about the production chain.

Some of the most tightly held data related to the procurement of uranium ore. Production rates were top secret until mid-1953 and were available only to a few persons beside the Commissioners because the amount of uranium ore processed could be related in a rough way to the production of fissionable materials. Ore data were also considered especially sensitive in the early years because most uranium used in the American project came from overseas sources under secret agreements. Of the 3,700 tons of uranium concentrates (U;O0,) that the Commission received

in 1953, only about one-quarter (1,100 tons) came from mines in the United States; the rest was produced in the Belgian Congo (1,600 tons), South Africa (500 tons), Canada (400 tons), and Portugal (100 tons). Another reason for secrecy was that successful accomplishment of the expansion program was heavily dependent upon the availability of sufficient ore to feed the production plants then under construction. The plants then in operation or under construction would require 9,150 tons of uranium concentrates per year when in full operation. Thus, 1953 receipts were less than one-half the ultimately required amount, and that goal was not ex-

pected to be attained before 1957, more than a year after all the plants were to be completed.””

These facts justified the high priority the Commission put on ore

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

procurement, but they did not tell the whole story. Prospects for new sources of ore were developing so rapidly that it was difficult to keep up with them. As for foreign sources, the leveling off of production from the Shinkolobwe mine in the Belgian Congo would be more than offset by projections of rapidly increasing deliveries later in the decade from the Union of South Africa and Canada. South African concentrate production could reasonably be expected to rise to five or six thousand tons per year by 1960

as leading plants were constructed to process uranium in residues from gold-mining operations in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. Increased Canadian production was expected to come from new ore discoveries in northwestern Saskatchewan and northwestern Ontario.*°

By far the most dramatic increase in concentrate production came from domestic sources in the western United States. In 1948 just over 100 tons of concentrates were delivered from domestic sources, principally from

160 the Salt Wash member of the Morrison geologic formation in southwestern Colorado and southeastern Utah. By 1953 progressive exploration and Commission production incentives had extended the ore-producing area on

the Colorado plateau to three times its original size and had led to the discovery of significant deposits in other types of geologic formations in New Mexico, South Dakota, and Wyoming. So rapidly had ore prospects improved in the western states that Jesse C. Johnson, the Commission’s director of raw materials, was able to abandon earlier plans to extract very low-grade ore from Tennessee shales and Florida phosphates. Although hundreds of millions of tons of ore were potentially available from these sources, the concentrates would cost $40 to $50 per pound, compared to an average cost of $12 per pound for plateau ores.*! Uranium mining on the plateau, in fact, was taking on boom proportions, which the newspapers found reminiscent of gold-rush days. As often happened in the mining industry, intense exploration resulted in discoveries of large deposits of relatively high-grade ore where only scattered, small

deposits had been found before. The 1953 boom added the names of Charles A. Steen and Vernon J. Pick to the list of rags-to-riches legends in American mining history. *”

With ore receipts approaching one-half million tons per year in 1953, Johnson’s highest priority was to see that mills were built on the plateau fast enough to process the ore into concentrates. All the mills on the plateau in early 1953, except the Commission mill at Monticello, Utah, were privately owned. The largest private mills, all in Colorado, were two operated by the U.S. Vanadium Company at Rifle and Uravan, two operated by the Vanadium Corporation of America at Naturita and Durango, and one

at Grand Junction, operated by the Climax Uranium Company; Vitro Chemical Company also had a plant at Salt Lake City, Utah. These mills barely met 1953 requirements. Despite efforts to build new mills, specifi-

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

cally near the New Mexico discoveries, the Commission’s ore stockpile grew to 775,000 tons by the spring of 1954, when ore was being delivered at a rate of 900,000 tons per year at an average grade of 0.3 percent U;QO,. Ore deliveries, if not mill capacity, continued to outstrip requirements.” The domestic procurement experience seemed to substantiate the position Commissioner Murray had consistently taken—namely, that in searching for supposedly ever scarcer minerals, strong incentives for private industry often produced generous supplies. In July 1952 Murray had urged the Commission to establish a procurement goal of 12,500 tons of concentrate per year, about 25 percent more than the 9,150 tons needed for all plants to be built under the expansion program. The Commission adopted the higher goal within a price ceiling of twenty-five dollars per pound. As the Colorado uranium boom developed in 1953 along with prospects for much larger deliveries from South Africa and Canada, the Com-

mission had no difficulty in raising the goal to 15,000 tons in April 1954. 16] Five months later, the Commission could adopt a firm target of 17,500 tons per year with a permissive target of 20,000 at a maximum price of fifteen dollars per pound. Continuing improvement in the raw material outlook was reflected in further increases in the procurement goal to about 25,000 tons

in July 1955 and to 27,000 tons in February 1956. Although projections for both civilian and military uses were still uncertain, there was growing confidence within the Commission that ore procurement would not inhibit future development.**

PRODUCTION PLANTS

The increasing amounts of uranium concentrates being delivered in the mid-1950s provided feed for the growing network of facilities that produced plutonium, uranium-235, and other materials for nuclear weapons. During most of this period the concentrates delivered from domestic and foreign

sources were reduced to uranium metal at the Mallinckrodt Chemical Works in St. Louis, Missouri, or at the Feed Materials Production Center,

a new facility the Commission had constructed at Fernald, Ohio, near Cincinnati. Slugs of metallic uranium were shipped to Hanford, where they were welded into aluminum cans and inserted in the six plutoniumproducing reactors in operation in early 1953. The much larger stocks of “virgin” uranium to be produced in the feed plants in subsequent years would serve as fuel for the new “Jumbo” reactors (KE and KW) at Hanford and for the five huge heavy-water reactors at Savannah River.*° Under the expansion program the increase in uranium-235 production was to be even larger than that of plutonium. Some measure of magnitude of the expansion could be gained from the gigantic effort to construct

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

new gaseous-diffusion plants for producing uranium-235. The original Ushaped building at Oak Ridge had been one of the largest industrial plants ever constructed in the United States. In 1953 the original facility was dwarfed by the construction of three much more efficient plants at Oak Ridge (K-29, K-31, and K-33). As the year began, the foundations for K33 were completed. Roughly comparable in physical size to the Oak Ridge complex would be the gaseous-diffusion plants at Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio. Started early in 1951, the first unit (C-31) of the Paducah plant was in operation late in 1952, and the three other units were in various stages of construction. Site studies had just started for the three big units at Portsmouth. Because of the severe shortage of feed materials, very little of the uranium hexafluoride to be processed in these plants would come from virgin uranium. Instead the Commission was forced to rely on the enormous

162 quantities of slightly depleted uranium that would come from the Hanford and Savannah River reactors. Until recently all the uranium removed from the Hanford reactors since 1945 had been stored in a chemical soup with a variety of fission products in huge underground tanks at Hanford. After years of plodding development by several laboratories, the Commission had placed in operation the Redox plant, which recovered uranium as well as plutonium from the irradiated fuel slugs at Hanford. Although Redox was

theoretically capable of extracting uranium from material in the underground tanks, a solvent-extraction process using tributyl phosphate (TBP) as the solvent showed greater promise for this process. After a long series of construction delays, the TBP plant was just coming into operation early in 1953, and Redox was just approaching capacity operation.

The rapidly improving prospects for developing a thermonuclear weapon during the early 1950s stimulated interest in producing the materials that would probably be used in such a weapon, especially the heavy isotopes of hydrogen: deuterium and tritium. The Commission already had an impressive production capacity for deuterium in the heavy-water plants

at Dana, Indiana, and Savannah River, South Carolina, which had been built to supply moderator for the production reactors at Savannah River. Tritium, a radioactive isotope with a relatively short half-life, did not ordinarily exist in nature and had to be produced by irradiating the light ele-

ment, lithium, in a production reactor. Although both the Hanford and Savannah River reactors would be capable of producing tritium, their use for this purpose would reduce their capacity for plutonium production. Unless additional reactors were built, the Commission would have to balance its needs for plutonium and tritium. There was another approach to the thermonuclear weapon that could conceivably reduce the demand on reactor capacity for tritium production. This was the idea, first discussed at the Princeton conference in 1951, of

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

placing lithium in the weapon itself and using fission neutrons to produce tritium in place. For this purpose, however, it appeared necessary to use the lighter isotope of lithium, which made up only 7 percent of the element in nature. In 1949 there had been some interest in separating the lithium isotopes, not for lithium-6 but for lithium-7, which had some attractive properties for use as a reactor coolant and moderator. Preliminary research on methods of separating the lithium isotopes was thus available at Oak Ridge in 1951, when the Los Alamos laboratory first requested a small amount of highly enriched lithium-6 for thermonuclear research. This material was produced with the old electromagnetic equipment built at Oak Ridge during World War II. The gross inefficiency and high cost of this operation, however, prompted the development of a better method, for which an electric exchange process was selected. Elex, as it was called, consisted of large shallow trays in which mechanical agitators mixed an

amalgam of lithium and mercury with an aqueous solution of lithium hy- 163 droxide. After counterflow through a series of stages, the lithium-6 tended

to concentrate in the amalgam while the lithium-7 could be extracted by electrolysis from the hydroxide solution. Chemical reaction between lithium and water was prevented by placing anodes in the hydroxide solution and using the amalgam as a cathode. *° Although Oak Ridge had nothing more than laboratory data on the Elex process, the urgent need for lithium-6 for the thermonuclear program led the Commission in August 1951 to approve construction of a small plant to be in production by autumn 1952. Within a matter of weeks, however, this plan was overtaken by Los Alamos research, which suggested the pos-

sibility of a dry thermonuclear fuel using lithium deuteride. Late in September 1951 Oak Ridge had a new requirement: produce lithium deuteride by September 1953 in an Elex plant with twice the capacity of the original plant. Top priorities and special effort brought the first half of the plant into operation on August 14, 1953, and the second half came into operation a month later.*?

DRIVE FOR THE HYDROGEN BOMB

The steadily increasing tempo of the Commission’s production and construction activities reflected in large part the evergrowing sense of urgency to achieve an operational hydrogen bomb. A formal military requirement laid down by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in June 1952 called upon the Commission to produce a thermonuclear weapon in the megaton range that would be compatible with delivery systems to be available in 1954.*® There

were two ways of approaching that goal. One was to develop a very large fission weapon using substantial amounts of thermonuclear fuel. Before the

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

Mike shot in November 1952, this “semi-thermonuclear” weapon seemed the shortest and surest route to the formal requirement, but it offered no other advantages. Besides being a very large and heavy weapon, it did not seem to point to promising avenues of future development. The second approach was the “true” thermonuclear weapon. Because it depended on a radical new design using the Teller-Ulam principle, it involved more risk than the “semi,” but it opened a wide range of possibilities for thermonuclear designs, including weapons much smaller than the “semi” on the one hand or very much larger in yield on the other. Either approach seemed amenable to wet or dry thermonuclear fuels.” Important as Mike was in verifying the Teller-Ulam principle, it was not the key to reaching the military requirement. Mike and other experiments conducted during the Upshot series merely increased the probability that the “true” weapon would work. The actual testing of models that could

164 be turned into weapons would come in Operation Castle, originally scheduled for autumn 1953. To meet the military requirement on time, it seemed that Castle could be no later than that. The schedule would also have made it possible to use elements of Major General Percy W. Clarkson’s Joint Task

Force 132, which had conducted the /vy series in 1952, to provide the logistics and support operations for Castle.

PLANNING FOR CASTLE

The stunning success of the Mike shot resulted almost immediately in postponing Castle until early 1954. The postponement opened the opportunity to conduct in the Upshot series further experiments that would contribute directly to Castle. The delay also assured the availability of more lithium6 for Castle devices and moved the tests to the late winter and spring, when favorable weather conditions were more likely in the central Pacific. There

was one disadvantage: the military services would have to disband some support units at Enewetak and then assemble new teams for Castle.” Long before Mike and the change of schedule, however, plans had been laid for a major revision of testing procedures in the Pacific. Mike would merely confirm what Alvin C. Graves, the scientific test director, and others at Los Alamos had already concluded: namely, thermonuclear shots in the megaton range were too powerful to be conducted at Enewetak without threatening the extensive facilities that had been constructed there for earlier tests. Mike had destroyed an entire island in the Enewetak atoll and had damaged facilities on other islands. With the much larger tests contemplated for Castle, even the permanent facilities at the southern rim of the atoll would be threatened by thermonuclear tests on the northern islands. After considering several alternatives, Graves recommended that

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

most shots in the Castle series, specifically the large thermonuclear tests, be conducted at Bikini, some 180 miles east of Enewetak. Bikini, the site of Operation Crossroads in 1946, was still uninhabited, but it offered no facilities that would be useful in 1954. Graves’s plan was to keep the main operational base for Castle at Enewetak, where the low-yield tests would be conducted. For the large tests at Bikini it was necessary to construct only a tent camp for construction and test personnel, a power plant, and a runway for small cargo planes. The two atolls would be linked by aircraft, ships, and radio and telephone communications.*! In a sense one could say that nuclear weapon technology had now reached such colossal dimensions that a test site more than 180 miles wide was required. The unprecedented radioactive fallout during the Upshot-Knothole series, the public anxiety about the possible effects of testing on weather, and the Eisenhower Administration’s interest in budget stringency all com-

bined to prod the Commission to reduce the number of tests scheduled for 165 Castle. From the other direction, the Commission heard persuasive arguments from the weapon laboratories for at least six shots. Graves told the Commissioners on July 23, 1953, that there were compelling reasons for all six tests. The first three were high-yield shots necessary to assure an emergency capability with thermonuclear weapons; they would lead to weapons that could be carried in a B-36 bomber. The fourth, also highyield but somewhat smaller in size and weight than the others, was intended for use in the new B-47 bomber. As a Los Alamos leader, Graves could vouch for the value of the first four high-yield shots, just as Herbert F. York and others at Livermore could speak for the need for the two low-yield tests, which it was hoped would open the way to thermonuclear weapons much smaller in size and yield than Mike.” There were the usual discussions of the relative merits of the proposed shots with some agonizing over how many should be devoted to assuring an emergency capability and how many to developing new and more promising designs. Beyond these concerns was always the dilemma of substituting for the recommended shots one or more highly experimental tests with new designs that might easily fail but that might also provide a giant step forward in weapon technology should they prove successful. Strauss asked Graves how long the Commission could postpone the decision without jeopardizing the February 15 start of the Castle series; Graves suggested the middle of September. By that time the Soviet Union had detonated Joe 4, an event that raised the level of anxiety and urgency within the Commission and the laboratories. When Kenneth E. Fields, the director of military application, presented the revised shot schedule on September 22, 1953, he noted the need for one substitution and a delay in starting the series until March 1, mostly because of a lag in construction at Bikini but also in order to ease

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

the strain on logistics. Again the Commissioners struggled with the need to

assure emergency capability with pedestrian but reliable designs as opposed to testing more risky but also more promising concepts.

NEW PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS

A new issue appearing in September 1953 was the critical need for lithium deuteride and tritium. To the extent that any device designed to provide emergency capability relied on large amounts of these materials, the less probable it was that the laboratories would meet the required stockpile dates. And beyond that point, there was still no positive assurance that a dry weapon would work. If the first test in the series, which was to be a weapon using lithium deuteride, should fail, the test schedule would have

166 to be revised, and the possibility would increase that Los Alamos would have to fall back for emergency capability on such unpromising systems as the weapon version of Mike with its great bulk and cumbersome cryogenic

gear. Although the Commissioners were determined to give the highest priority to the emergency capability, they were also prepared to take a large

risk that dry weapons would be successful, an assumption that dictated a much larger potential requirement for lithium deuteride than the recently completed plants at Oak Ridge would produce. On September 30 to meet this prospective demand the Commission authorized construction at Oak Ridge of a second plant, larger than the first, using a somewhat different process called Colex, which utilized countercurrent exchange in columns. As officials in the Bureau of the Budget found, to their consternation, the Commission had approved the new plant simply on the anticipation of need and with no firm requirement from the Department of Defense. Instead of following usual budget channels, Strauss obtained the required apportion-

ment of funds directly from Budget Director Dodge while Defense proceeded to draft the requirement.“ Formal statement of the higher requirement came from the Joint Chiefs of Staff on December 15, 1953. The Joint Chiefs expressed the opinion that Joe 4 threatened the “substantial lead in destructive capability” that the United States enjoyed over the Soviet Union. Because production of thermonuclear weapons was “the cheapest method to obtain highyield weapons and more destructive capability,” the Soviet Union could be expected to pursue this course. Unless the United States substantially accelerated its schedule for producing thermonuclear weapons, the Soviet Union would obtain nuclear superiority by 1958. In this dangerous situation, the Joint Chiefs saw only two solutions: first, to build new production facilities at great expense; or, second, to shift

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

production in order to increase the size of the thermonuclear stockpile more rapidly. The latter course seemed the better, although it would mean some reduction in requirements for fission weapons in the megaton range. Following this course the Joint Chiefs proposed new requirements for the composition of the stockpile that would allocate available production capacity mostly to high-yield thermonuclear weapons and low-yield fission weapons for tactical support, air defense, and demolition.” Even before the Joint Chiefs sent the formal notification, the Commission’s operating contractors were considering how best to meet the new requirements. It seemed likely that the military requirements could be met

over the long range, but there were questions about the near term. With the existing reactors at Hanford and the new units just coming into operation at Savannah River it would be difficult to produce the large amounts of tritium needed for weapons in the proposed stockpile, but there were rea-

sons to be hopeful. First, new methods of loading the reactors would sub- 167 stantially increase production of either tritium or plutonium, and, second, the Castle tests might significantly reduce the amount of tritium required for each thermonuclear weapon.“ If tritium requirements could be reduced, the Commission would have more capacity at Hanford and Savannah River for producing plutonium, which would also be in short supply. Plutonium was needed for not only low-yield fission weapons but also the fission component that would initiate thermonuclear reactions in the hydrogen bomb. The Commission’s production staff undertook detailed studies to determine the optimum allocation of reactor capacity at both sites to tritium and plutonium formation. Other nuclear materials needed to meet the new requirements from the Joint Chiefs would also be in short supply, but there were ways in which the Commission could close most gaps. The outlook for deuterium production was relatively good because the existing plants at Dana and Savannah River could produce all the heavy water required; but it would be necessary to enlarge the electrolytic plant at Savannah River and build a new one at Oak Ridge to extract deuterium from heavy water. Part of the near-term deficiency in uranium-235 production could be overcome by accelerating completion of the new gaseous-diffusion plants at Oak Ridge and Paducah. Beyond that, until the Portsmouth plant could be built, more production of uranium-235 could be accomplished only by either feeding more uranium to the Oak Ridge and Paducah plants or increasing the amount of elec-

tric power used to drive the compressors. In either case, the decision would rest ultimately upon how much the Commission was willing to pay

for additional production. As for lithium-6, the expansion of the Oak Ridge facility authorized only a few weeks earlier would meet the Joint Chiefs’ requirements if the amount of feed for one new Colex plant was increased. *

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

THE QUESTION OF RESPONSIBILITY

It did seem possible to meet most Joint Chiefs’ requirements, and there was no sentiment within the Commission on December 23, 1953, to delay the

immediate actions that General Manager Nichols proposed on an emergency basis. The letter from the Joint Chiefs, however, did raise some old concerns about the nature and implications of military requirements, which the Commissioners had discussed many times over the preceding seven years.” Although Strauss favored quick action, he wanted to confirm his impression that the stockpile recommended by the Joint Chiefs was based on specific targeting plans, not just their estimates of the Commission’s ability to produce.

Zuckert, who remained unconvinced on this point, spoke at some length about the enormous destructive capability of the proposed stockpile,

168 which he estimated would be equivalent to several billion tons of TNT by 1957. He posed the frightening possibility that by then the United States might have the capacity to destroy the entire arable portion of the Soviet Union. Zuckert did not think the Commission should question military requirements on military grounds, but he believed that the Commissioners had individual responsibilities as civilian officials to make sure that the

President understood the implications of a decision that clearly transcended military matters. The decision, in Zuckert’s opinion, involved a determination by the highest civilian authority that the proposed size and composition of the stockpile were consistent with national objectives as well as military needs. Although Strauss did not really question the validity of the requirements, he acknowledged the obligation to discuss the issue with the President. In addition to the points Zuckert had raised, Strauss shared Smyth’s concern about the potential hazards from radioactive fallout if military plans for using thermonuclear weapons were ever carried out. Early in February 1954 the Commissioners reviewed the entire proposal in detail and discussed its implications. As a result, the question was presented to k1isenhower in a joint letter from Strauss and Secretary of Defense Wilson, and the President signed a formal directive approving the decision on February 6, more than two months after Nichols had alerted the staff to prepare for the new requirements. *

BUILD-UP FOR CASTLE

Although the Commissioners did not begin to concentrate their attention on

Castle until late 1953, preparations for the tests had started more than a year earlier. On October 2, 1952, within weeks after the Commission had approved the Bikini site, the first contingent of thirty-nine employees of

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

Holmes & Narver, Inc., the Commission’s construction contractor at the Pacific Proving Grounds, landed on Bikini to begin site preparations. By the time the /vy series began a month later, about two hundred people were working on the few essential facilities needed to accommodate air and sea transportation from Enewetak.° As soon as the essential activities of Operation /vy were completed early in 1953, General Clarkson established Joint Task Force 7, which included many components of the /vy group, and began to build the complex of administrative arrangements that would enable the three military services to support the scientists in the Castle series. The first task was to reach agreement on the general conception of the operation. All high-yield tests would be conducted at Bikini, but the main base of operations would continue to be Enewetak. Activities at Bikini were to be limited to the minimum necessary to instrument and fire the devices. In fact, the devices

themselves, with one exception, would not be assembled at Bikini but 169 rather in the Enewetak Atoll. Placed on barges, the test devices would be towed to firing positions at Bikini.*!

The plan reflected in many ways the incredible magnitude of the effects expected from large thermonuclear weapons. So enormous were the projected yields that it hardly seemed feasible to maintain habitable facilities at Bikini, even when the shots were fired on the opposite side of the atoll. In addition, experience with the Mike shot at Ivy made clear that the relatively small amount of land above sea level at Bikini would soon be destroyed if all future tests were to be land-based. But the operation of the proving ground, which stretched over more than two hundred miles of open ocean, posed logistical and administrative problems for Clarkson and the Joint Task Force. Transportation requirements alone challenged the capabilities of the peacetime military services in moving thousands of personnel and tons of equipment between the atolls and between the islands composing each atoll. Communication needs were equally demanding, not only in terms of installing telephone, cable, and radio facilities but also in managing the networks. At Enewetak Island, which served as the base of operations, and Parry Island, where most test devices were assembled, the task force had to arrange for construction of

machine shops, laboratories, warehouses, repair facilities, barracks, offices, and port facilities. As in the /vy series, Clarkson organized the Joint Task Force by task sroups. The scientific task group (7.1) under William E. Ogle, a Los Alamos scientist, was responsible for all aspects of assembling, positioning, and firing the devices. The group also installed all related test instrumentation and managed the radiological safety program. Lach military service operated as a task group. The Army group (7.2) was responsible for ground

security and all base facilities at Enewetak. The Navy task group (7.3) provided security for the thousands of square miles of ocean within the

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

danger area, operated the interatol! ship transport system, provided shipboard technical facilities, and moved the firing targets to Bikini. The Air Force task force (7.4) supplied aircraft for cloud sampling and tracking, technical photography, and weapon effects on aircraft. A major Air Force assignment was operating a network of weather stations on islands in the central Pacific that reported, along with Air Force weather reconnaissance planes, to Weather Control at Enewetak. The Air Force task group also operated the interatoll air transport system and provided search and rescue operations. A fifth task group, not included in the /vy operation, was staffed by Commission personnel from the Santa Fe operations office to supervise construction operations by Holmes & Narver.*?

The unprecedented yields projected for some Castle shots were something the military task group could understand. Very early the Air Force task group concluded that the aircraft used in /vy for sampling air-

170 borne debris from the detonations lacked the speed, range, and altitude capabilities needed to track and sample the downwind movement of particles from the Castle tests. Acquiring suitable aircraft and developing effective procedures for cloud sampling thus became matters of special concern. Both the Air Force and the Navy recognized the growing importance of accurate weather forecasting as the yield of the shots increased. Wind patterns, not only on the surface but at all altitudes up to 100,000 feet, could conceivably carry clouds of radioactive particles over inhabited islands as far away as Enewetak or other islands in the Marshalls, where rainfall might cause substantial fallout. Despite extensive experience gained by the military weather services in earlier Pacific tests, the relative lack of good data, compared with those available for continental land masses, posed a special challenge for the weatherman. **

Likewise the military task groups had no trouble appreciating the security implications of an operation as big and dispersed as Castle. Lacking the authority to censor mail or other private communications, the Joint Task Force recognized that it would be almost impossible to prevent some information about the tests from seeping to the outside world, despite extensive measures for indoctrinating personnel on the importance of security. The enormous magnitudes of the projected yields in themselves threatened security. The flash and sonic shock wave might be observable fifty or

more miles away, and, depending on weather conditions, some fallout might occur at even greater distances. Samples of fallout material picked up by Soviet spy ships could reveal important information about the nature of the test. Thus, it was deemed essential to conceal any information about the precise time or location planned for any test. It was also vital to establish an exclusion or “danger” area large enough to preclude obvious intelligence gathering by the Soviet Union or other nations.” The military task groups, however, were less impressed with operational considerations posed by the less familiar characteristics of nuclear

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

tests, specifically the dangers of radiation. Radioactive fallout was considered a potential but unlikely hazard beyond the immediate vicinity of Bikini. This attitude resulted from the /vy experience, where extraordinary precautions were taken at considerable expense and to little purpose when virtually no local fallout occurred from the Mike shot. Graves and Commission officials had some difficulty convincing the military to make comparable plans for aerial surveys and emergency evacuation plans for Castle.» The absence of any pressing concern about fallout was clearly reflected in the definition of the “danger” zone established for Castle. Obviously the [vy exclusion area had to be enlarged eastward to include Bikini, but the question was how much further east. Extending east and south of Bikini were two long chains of atolls that composed the Marshall Islands. With unfavorable precipitation and wind patterns, significant fallout on some of these islands was theoretically possible. For that reason, the sci-

entific task group intended to exercise every reasonable precaution within 17] the limits of weather forecasting to see that radioactive debris from Castle shots would move in a northeasterly direction, away from Enewetak and the Marshalls. Recognizing the margins for error, the scientists insisted that the military services establish a capability for emergency evacuation of Enewetak and of the Marshall atolls immediately east of Bikini. The nearest of these atolls were Rongelap and Ailinginae, which lay scarcely more than fifty miles east-northeast of Bikini. If the exclusion area had been established with the fallout hazard as the primary concern, these atolls might

well have been included within its boundaries. But in fact the eastern border of the exclusion zone was established, on the recommendation of the Department of the Interior, precisely to exclude the two atolls on the grounds that inclusion would require evacuation of the inhabitants for the duration of Castle. Thus, the eastern boundary at 166° 16° east longitude was fixed primarily for security reasons, and to that extent it was misleading to refer to the zone as a “danger area.” By early 1954 more than ten thousand military and scientific personnel were pushing to meet the March 1| deadline for the first shot in the Castle series. Much activity related to the twenty experimental programs to be carried out with the detonations. Although many of these were directly related to weapon diagnostics, six experimental programs were sponsored by the Department of Defense and concerned weapon effects.°’ Actual assembly of the first device could not be completed until February 17, after the USS Curtiss arrived at Enewetak under destroyer escort with the nuclear

components. The three military task groups conducted operational rehearsals during February, concluding with a general task force rehearsal on the morning

of February 23. All task groups participated as fully as possible to test security and emergency evacuation procedures, the cloud sampling system, and communications. The scientific task group tested the readiness of in-

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

13°N

ENEWETAK BIKINI, 7 | -** LUCKY A oe me @ & RONGELALG “~,; ° ‘ Ps @roncerik UTIRIK

11°N ™ SD AILINGINAE y

9°N ‘ on

8 WOTHO % KWAJALEIN

172

160°E 162°E 164°E 166°E 168°E 170°E Figure 1. The exclusion area established for the March 1, 1954, Castle Bravo shot did not contain the Marshall atolls east of Bikini. The dotted lines indicate the path of the fallout cloud. Also shown is the position of the Japanese fishing vessel, the Lucky Dragon, at the time of the detonation.

strumentation and firing circuits as far as possible. Ogle encountered several technical problems that would have aborted an actual detonation on that day. During the last two days in February, small craft began evacuating the last 1,400 workmen and technicians from the island camps at Bikini to ships in the lagoon, which then moved southeast about thirty miles from ground zero. All usable equipment had been moved south to Eninman and Enyu Islands so that it would be the maximum distance (about twenty miles) from the point of detonation. Only the firing party remained ashore, in a specially constructed bunker on Enyu.*?

BRAVO

On February 22, 1954, the scientific task group under Ogle’s direction completed the installation of the Bravo test device. Because it was to be the first shot in the series, the device had not been placed on a barge but in a small structure on a reef off Namu Island at the northwestern perimeter

of the atoll. As the first test of a dry thermonuclear system, Bravo had special significance. Its performance would affect the subsequent agenda for Castle and could conceivably change the course of future development of thermonuclear weapons. Once the final equipment checks were completed, the long count-

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

down began to H-hour, at 6:54 a.m., local time, on March 1. The actual firing time now depended mostly upon weather conditions, which in the central Pacific could change significantly from hour to hour. Clarkson, Graves, Ogle, and several other task group commanders attended weather briefings at midnight and at 4:00 a.m. March 1. There was little concern about precipitation because the forecasts called for a relatively light cloud cover and only widely scattered showers. The group gave more attention to the ever changing complex of wind patterns at various altitudes. That morn-

ing surface and low-altitude winds were from the northeast while those above 20,000 feet tended to be from the west, an almost typical pattern. The variability and hence the cause for uncertainty lay in the wind pattern from 7,000 to 11,000 feet. At these altitudes the winds were light, but they had a decidedly northerly component. The more northerly the wind vectors, the more likelihood there was that the radioactive cloud would pass over

the inhabited islands east of Bikini in the northern part of the Marshalls. 173 At the moment the weather picture seemed favorable if not ideal. In fact weather conditions had been near perfect on February 27 and had deteriorated only slightly since then. To postpone the shot might well have pushed the beginning of the Castle series into a decidedly unfavorable period with the possibility of a long and expensive delay. At the end of the four o’clock briefing, Clarkson and his advisers decided to fire Bravo on schedule. From the moment of firing Bravo gave every sign of being a spec-

tacular success. Even the crudest, most preliminary measurements indicated a yield far greater than the six megatons estimated as the most likely figure. Other and more ominous indications of large yield were the surprisingly high levels of radiation recorded. Aircraft approaching Eninman Island a few minutes after the detonation recorded radiation levels that would preclude immediate reopening of the airstrip. A few minutes later the firing party in the control bunker on Enyu Island reported rapidly rising radiation readings even after the doors of the bunker had been closed. Before eight o’clock the Navy ships, which carried the shore personnel from Bikini and

served as floating laboratories and offices in the lagoon, began reporting dangerously high radiation levels. The ships, already thirty miles south of Bikini, were ordered to head south at best speed to a fifty-mile range, to activate washdown systems and to use maximum damage control measures. Radiation readings on the decks were as high as 5 roentgens per hour with maximum readings of 25 roentgens in deck drains. Personnel were forced to stay below decks in the stifling heat for more than four hours, until fallout declined to safe levels. The ships were then ordered to return within ten miles of Bikini, but they could not enter the lagoon because of high levels of radioactivity. The

firing party had been evacuated by helicopter from Enyu, and radiation levels on Eninman were too high to permit either Janding on the island or operating the airstrip. Extensive physical damage to the equipment stored

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

on kninman and to other facilities on the island showed the enormous destructive power of Bravo. Examination of test data gave a yield of fifteen megatons, almost three times the most probable figure. Much more troublesome were the unexpectedly high radiation levels, which gave the Joint Task Force no choice but to double maximum permissible exposures of 3.9 roentgens for critical personnel such as helicopter pilots, flight deck personnel, and boatpool operators. Unable to enter the lagoon, the principal

vessels of the Navy task group returned to Enewetak and prepared to resume operations at Bikini from a shipboard base of operations. Severe overcrowding of personnel on the ships, plus the unavailability of shore facilities, would hamper subsequent operations, but the earlier decision to use barge shots with instrumentation on buoys now seemed fortuitous. ° As radiation levels began to fall in the Bikini area late on March 1, reports of rapidly increasing readings trickled in from the atolls immedi-

174 ately to the east. These reports supported data collected by the Air Force cloud tracking teams that winds aloft were carrying the main body of Bravo debris in a direction just slightly north of east. As radiation levels climbed on March 2, the Air Force sent amphibious aircraft to Rongerik, 133 nautical miles from ground zero, to evacuate 28 military personnel who manned the weather station and other scientific equipment for the Joint Task Force. Later the same day the Navy task group dispatched destroyers from Bikini

to rescue native populations on other atolls. Early the next morning a beaching party went ashore at Rongelap, only about one hundred nautical miles southeast of ground zero. Within hours the islanders had gathered their personal belongings for what they believed would be a temporary stay at Kwajalein and boarded the USS Philip, where radioactive fallout was removed by washing. Later in the day another 18 islanders were picked up at nearby Ailinginae Atoll before the ship proceeded overnight to Kwaja-

lein. The second destroyer reached Utirik on March 4, and despite the heavy surf the Navy transferred 154 islanders by life raft and small boat to

the USS Renshaw. At Kwajalein military physicians examined the islanders and treated them for radiation exposure. When the people from Utirik showed no signs of radiation injury, they were transported to another island in the Marshalls,

where they stayed until they returned to their home island in June. The people from Rongelap and Ailinginae were less fortunate. Because they had been much closer to Bikini than had those from Utirik, they had received much more fallout. Average readings at Rongelap were 0.375 roentgens per hour, and some soil samples were as high as 2.2 roentgens. Taking

into account the length of time the islanders remained on Rongelap after the fallout occurred, radiation safety personnel computed that the islanders

received a whole-body gamma dose of 175 rad on Rongelap, 69 rad on Ailinginae, and 14 rad on Utirik. As could be expected from such exposures, the Rongelap islanders developed low blood counts and suffered

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

some temporary loss of hair, skin lesions, and hemorrhages under the skin. In terms of blood count, the islanders suffered about the same degree of

damage as did Japanese who were about 1.5 miles from ground zero at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Equally distressing to the Rongelapese was that they were effectively exiled from their island home. Despite assurances of

early repatriation, presumably by May 1955, the Rongelapese were not permitted to return to their home island until June 1957.°

THE LUCKY DRAGON

The final and in many ways the most telling radiation incident from Bravo

was not discovered until March 14, when a Japanese fishing vessel, the Fukuryu Maru (Lucky Dragon) No. 5 arrived in Japan with all twenty-three

members of the crew suffering from radiation exposure. The ship’s log and 175 interviews with the crew indicated that the vessel had been about eightytwo nautical miles from Bikini at the time of the Bravo shot, or just beyond the eastern boundary of the exclusion area. The crew had seen the flash and heard the detonation. Although the fishermen suspected that the blast was a nuclear weapon test, they did not know that tests were scheduled at that time or that there was any danger from fallout. In fact, only after skin irritation, nausea, and loss of hair developed on the return voyage to Japan did some of the crew begin to guess that the white powdery substance that

had fallen from the clouds like snow was radioactive. Fearing that they might be detained by the Americans or even that their ship might be sunk if their presence near Bikini were detected, the crew members decided to give no hint of what had happened until they returned home. By the time the ship reached its home port of Yaizu, the effects of radiation had become so prominent and irritating that several members of the crew reported to the local hospital. The two who appeared most seriously injured were taken to the Tokyo University Hospital, and within a few days all the rest were in the hospital in Yaizu.™ The Commission in Washington first learned of the Lucky Dragon

tragedy on March 15 from commercial news reports. Without waiting to consult Strauss, who had already left for the Pacific to witness the second shot in the Castle series, the other three Commissioners asked Nichols to provide immediate technical assistance to the American ambassador in Tokyo and to the Japanese scientists and physicians treating the fishermen. John J. Morton, director of the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission in Hiroshima, arrived in Tokyo on March 18 by military plane with a team of doctors and hematologists who had extensive experience in observing radiation effects in Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors. Radiation physicists provided by the U.S. Air Force joined the team in Tokyo. The team examined the two crewmen in the university hospital and compiled full clinical

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

reports. The following week the team went to Yaizu, where they were permitted to board the Lucky Dragon, take some samples of fallout, examine

some of the fish caught during the voyage, and use Geiger counters to measure radiation on the twenty-one crewmen in Yaizu.° By this time the incident had received sensational treatment in the Japanese press. Yomiuri Shimbun, one of the largest Tokyo dailies, carried a series of frightening stories about “ashes of death.” Another large Tokyo

paper, Shukan Asahi, reported that the Japanese people were “terrorstricken by the outrageous power of atomic weapons which they [had] wit-

nessed for the third time.” Asahi editors speculated on the nature of the weapon tested and raised the possibility that the Americans had detonated a cobalt bomb, intentionally designed to spread poisonous radiation. Much to the discomfort of Strauss, Murray, and other security-minded Commission officials, Shukan Asahi also raised the possibility that a bomb using

176 lithium had been tested.

Although the Americans seemed sincerely to regret the incident and offered the Japanese full cooperation and assistance in treating the injured fishermen, the Commission was deeply concerned about what the remaining traces of radioactive ash on the ship might reveal about the design of Bravo. The Americans were especially sensitive about any evidence that might

suggest the success of a dry thermonuclear weapon. For this reason the Americans refused to provide any information about weapon design or fallout content. The Japanese were especially offended by this refusal because they believed that the fishermen had been subjected to a new type of radiation and that it would be impossible to treat their injuries adequately without this information. The Japanese scientists and physicians simply could not accept the assurances of American experts that this information was unnecessary. In this atmosphere of suspicion, the initial Japanese willingness to cooperate with the Americans quickly evaporated. When Merril Eisenbud, director of the Commission’s health and safety laboratory in New York,

arrived in Tokyo on March 21, he was greeted courteously but was not permitted to examine any of the fishermen. Only after much persuasion that urine tests were essential in determining the amount of ingested radiation received was he able to obtain samples from some patients. As the Japanese position stiffened, the Americans became more frustrated. They were con-

vinced that the fishermen were not receiving the best possible treatment largely because, in Eisenbud’s opinion, the Japanese did not wish to appear dependent on American help. The Americans were also disappointed that they were not permitted to make full biomedical studies of a group of people who had lived for two weeks in a high radiation environment. The Japanese,

for their part, did not wish once again to be “guinea pigs” for American

experiments.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

As the incident became a major issue in Japanese politics and continued to dominate the newspapers, the Japanese people reacted with an intense emotionalism. It was as if all the pent-up fears and anxieties engendered by Hiroshima and Nagasaki had suddenly burst into the open. For the third time in a decade Japanese civilians had been inflicted with the disfiguring and insidious injuries caused by nuclear weapons. The involvement of a fishing vessel was especially disturbing because it suggested that radioactive fallout from weapon tests might poison a major source of food for the Japanese people. Both the State Department and John M. Allison, the American am-

bassador in Tokyo, at once sensed the full potential of the incident for damaging international relations. Allison had some success in conveying a sense of deep personal concern and in reassuring the Japanese government. He may also have been instrumental in keeping public criticism focused

almost entirely on nuclear weapons while surprisingly little hostility was 177 expressed against the United States. Within the Commission, however, there was much less evidence of compassion for the fishermen and more concern about the security and scientific implications. Eisenhower refused to say anything about the Bravo shot at his press conference on March 17, but he promised to answer questions the following week. From Enewetak Strauss sent Hagerty a report on Bravo. The tests,

Strauss reported, were routine, but the results to date had been of great value and significance. The reports of radiation injuries to the Marshall Islanders were exaggerated, Strauss maintained, and claims about the fishermen were unverified. After describing how the danger area was estab-

lished and patrolled, Strauss concluded: “The tests are continuing as planned.” On March 24 the President relayed to the press only Strauss’s statements about the exaggerated reports and deferred further comment until Strauss returned.” After witnessing the second Castle shot, Strauss released a statement on March 3] summarizing unclassified portions of his report to the President. Going back to the first Soviet atomic explosion in 1949, Strauss justified the tests as part of the nuclear arms race and then set about to correct “exaggerated and mistaken characterizations” of the tests by the press. Although the statement did serve that purpose, it was cast in cold, almost imperious language that tended to belittle the implications of fallout on the Marshall Islanders or the Japanese fishermen. One clearcut misstatement in Strauss’s report was that the Lucky Dragon “must have been well within the danger area.” All available evidence was and is to the contrary. That Strauss chose to reject evidence of the ship’s true position probably reflects his conviction, conveyed privately to Hagerty, that the Lucky Dragon was probably a “Red spy ship.” Similar suspicions expressed earlier in Japan by Congressman Cole had outraged the Japanese.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

COMPLETION OF CASTLE

For Clarkson and the Joint Task Force at Bikini the international implications of Bravo were more than overshadowed by the immediate logistical problems involved in completing the Castle series. The widespread devastation wrought by Bravo and the heavy fallout at Bikini required extensive changes in operational plans. Bravo had left Bikini all but uninhabitable so that logistical support and technical operations for the most part had to be based on Enewetak or on Navy ships assigned to Joint Task Force 7.3. The need to abandon even the limited base facilities at Bikini imposed a substantial transportation burden on shot preparations. Much equipment stored on Eninman Island before the Bravo shot now had to be loaded on ships and transported to Enewetak. The disastrous fallout following Bravo required the imposition of 178 much more stringent weather criteria for later shots in the series with attendant costly delays. Romeo, the second shot, was scheduled after Bravo for March 13 but could not be fired until March 27 because of unfavorable weather. Other shots in the series were also delayed as the frequency of favorable weather conditions declined during the spring. The exclusion area was greatly extended by adding a new sector centered on a point midway between Bikini and Enewetak and sweeping a huge semicircular area

450 miles in radius from west through north to the east. Both the new weather criteria and the expanded danger area recognized the unparalleled magnitude of both blast and fallout produced by thermonuclear weapons. The Nevada Proving Grounds, comprising about 500 square miles of desert, was a sizeable portion of the state, but it was miniscule compared to the exclusion area of 15,000 square miles at Enewetak for Operation /vy. Then for Bravo the Commission had expanded the exclusion area to include Bikini and its size reached more than 67,000 square miles, or roughly the size of New England. After the Bravo fallout, the area was expanded to about 570,000 square miles, or twice the area of Texas. Thus, the testing of a single large thermonuclear weapon was beginning to require the exclusion of people from a significant portion of the earth’s surface. The most profound changes in Castle operations after Bravo resulted from the extraordinary nature of the technical information revealed by the tests. In addition to demonstrating the feasibility of a dry thermonuclear weapon, Bravo opened the way to other design improvements, of which the surprisingly high yield was only one indication. Following Bravo the sequence of shots was changed for a second time; some planned shots were

canceled, and others were changed or added. Although such schedule changes in the middle of a series always introduced the possibility that some shots would not be used to the best advantages, the Los Alamos and Livermore scientists accepted the risk in order to capitalize on new opportunities for design improvement. As it turned out, four shots followed Bravo

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

and Romeo: Koon on April 7, Union on April 26, Yankee on May 5, and Nectar on May 14.7

THE NEW REALITY

Long before Nectar was fired, both the laboratories and the Commission realized that Castle had surpassed the most sanguine expectations for the series. [In autumn 1953 the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Commission had faced a given possibility of multiple failure. There had been no assurance that any shots would be successful; even if some devices were successful, they might not provide an emergency capability in megaton weapons that seemed essential to national security in meeting the Soviet challenge. And even if by chance one device offered that slim margin of emergency capa-

bility, there seemed even less chance that the Commission’s production 179 plants could turn out the special nuclear materials needed to meet stockpile requirements. For Strauss, Murray, Teller, and some Los Alamos scientists, the deadly race with the Soviet Union was very much in doubt. Possession of the hydrogen bomb alone could dangerously alter the balance in the Cold War.

But Castle changed all that. Even after Bravo, and certainly after Romeo, the future looked entirely different. It seemed that the American scientists had suddenly found the key to new realms of nuclear weapons. With a few notable exceptions, every new design principle incorporated in the Castle series seemed to work, often beyond the hopes of the most opti-

mistic designers. By the time Castle was over, the United States had a choice of weapons for emergency capability. The feasibility of the dry thermonuclear weapon had been demonstrated so decisively that the Commission with confidence could cancel its contracts for cryogenics research for the wet device. Equally important, the decision for dry weapons would immediately relieve the heavy pressure on the Commission’s production complex. The

plan to use a substantial portion of the neutrons in the Savannah River reactors for producing tritium could now be abandoned and that much more

of the capacity devoted to plutonium formation. Castle also opened new possibilities for the more efficient use of all special nuclear materials, including lithium-6. Thus, even a heavy dependence on dry thermonuclear designs did not severely tax the capacity of the Alloy Development Plant, which was already producing beyond its design specifications at Oak Ridge. ” The design concepts demonstrated in Castle opened the way not only to multimegaton weapons of vast destructive capability but also to a whole

“family” of thermonuclear weapons in a spectrum of yields, ranging from small tactical weapons to those matching the yields of much heavier and

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

larger fission weapons already in the stockpile. In fact, Castle had rendered some stockpile weapons obsolete and seemed to be overtaking the utility of others. In explaining the significance of Castle to the general advisory committee on July 14, 1954, Bradbury went far beyond a description of specific design improvements. Castle, he said, had made possible a new philosophy

for building the stockpile. Rather than try to achieve a balanced distribution of yields, Bradbury wanted both to concentrate on types in which large numbers of weapons would be needed and to develop the best possible weapons with optimum characteristics. This change alone would effectively enlarge the stockpile of ready weapons. Isidor I. Rabi, the distinguished physicist who had replaced Oppenheimer as chairman of the committee, saw in Bradbury’s remarks “a complete revolution” in nuclear weapons. Two years in the future, Rabi said, the stockpile would have little resemblance to what it had been two years

180 earlier in 1952 before the Mike shot. These sweeping changes in weapon technology, Rabi suggested, reflected a growing maturity that would require a more sophisticated use of systems engineering. In this respect, the Sandia laboratories operated by Western Electric at Albuquerque could make an important contribution. The entire committee agreed that the performance

of the Los Alamos scientists at Castle had been outstanding. Committee members sensed an increasing feeling of strength and experience that had been missing at Los Alamos a few years earlier.” As for Livermore, the committee saw in the new laboratory an excit-

ing potential for the future, despite the fact that the Livermore shots planned for Castle had proved no more successful than those at UpshotKnothole. Both Rabi and John von Neumann, the metamathematician, agreed that the Livermore scientists had done a remarkable job of diagnos-

ing data from Castle experiments. Herbert F. York and the young colleagues he had helped recruit for the new laboratory were talented and energetic. They were purposely concentrating on the more difficult, highrisk designs that they hoped would quickly establish the laboratory’s reputation as second to none, including Los Alamos. While York and his associates reveled in the freedom and informality they enjoyed under Ernest Lawrence’s protection, the more experienced and conservative members of the general advisory committee were concerned about the lack of organization at Livermore. Although York was scientific director, the laboratory still had no formal head. Teller still wielded an enormous and stimulating intellectual influence in the laboratory, but he could not give it the kind of stable management the committee thought it needed. York might be able to provide that stability, but he was young and relatively inexperienced. The committee hoped that the leadership question could be settled soon so that Livermore could reach its full potential.” As results of the Castle series came in, the sense of accomplishment shared by the weapon laboratories and the Joint Task Force was certainly

f J 300 PA

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

id | e y aan ; ,| / 100i“~ f ‘ |

\./ 18]

;:\ ¢

_—. ome me 500 es ee ee \ _ — “‘ * ALBANY

BOSTON

1000 /\ bs A Vy i“ : mo 2000 } / NEW YORK

fs. ? % :SI

5000 Lz 7 PHILADELPHIA

Aa + ee ol came «

, "Vp BALTIMORE

MN —e

WASHINGTON —" WA Y

ert 6 0 50 100 150 Q\ Miles \ $ y/,

RICHMOND ¢ . 6 @

Figure 2. Fallout pattern from March 1, 1954. Castle Bravo detonation superimposed on the eastern United States.

justified. The weapon devices themselves were evidence of exceptional scientific ingenuity and imagination. The successful conduct of the tests, de-

spite the unexpected difficulties created by Bravo, were a tribute to all three military services under Clarkson’s command. But Castle, like UpshotKnothole, did taint the sweet taste of success with a sickening reality: mankind had succeeded in producing a weapon that could destroy large areas and threaten life over thousands of square miles. In fact, the hydrogen bomb was so enormous in its destructive power

that it defied human description. The general public caught some sense of this dimension at the conclusion of the President’s press conference on March 31, 1954, when in response to a question, Strauss said that the bomb could be made big enough “to take out any city,” even New York. The remark made headlines in the nation’s newspapers. More precise descriptions of the bomb’s destructive power were not possible in unclassified

NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A NEW REALITY

statements. Much more frightening was General Fields’s statement on the fallout effects of Bravo at a Commission meeting on May 24. If Bravo had been detonated at Washington, D.C., instead of Bikini, Fields illustrated with a diagram, the lifetime dose in the Washington-Baltimore area would have been 5,000 roentgens; in Philadelphia, more than 1,000 roentgens; in New York City more than 500, or enough to result in death for half the population if fully exposed to all the radiation delivered. Fallout in the 100roentgen area, which might have been roughly comparable to the Lucky Dragon exposures, stretched northward in a wide band through New England toward the Canadian border. This diagram was classified secret and received very little distribution beyond the Commissioners. ” Although not privy to this information, knowledgeable scientists did not fail to grasp the significance of Castle. Eugene Rabinowitch, editor of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, saw an ominous warning in the Castle

182 results, especially when they were placed alongside John Foster Dulles’s enunciation of “massive retaliation” as a principle of American foreign policy only a few months earlier. Rabinowitch expressed his alarm

that statesmen (and ordinary citizens) discuss (and some of them advocate) “massive retaliation” as an answer to local aggression, at the very moment when the Bikini test should have taught them that “atomic retaliation” has become something no sane person should even consider as a rational answer to any political or military situation (short of direct Soviet aggression against the United States or Western Europe—if then). ”°

For four years the hydrogen bomb had been the preoccupation of hundreds of American scientists and engineers. In spring 1954 success had come in almost too heady a form. And just behind it were the frightening problems—some that threatened human existence itself—created by that success. The Atomic Energy Commission, the United States, and the world truly faced a new reality in the technology of war.

CHAPTER 7

NUCLEAR POWER FOR THE MARKETPLACE

In his testimony before the Joint Committee on July 31, 1953, Lewis Strauss was careful to avoid committing himself on any sticky issue arising from the development of civilian nuclear power and industry’s potential role

in it. In fact, Strauss told the committee, in the few weeks since he had become chairman, he had been able to do little more to prepare himself than to read portions of the transcript of the hearings that had begun on June 24 with Gordon Dean’s farewell statement. The transcript presented new facts that, Strauss said, would cause him to approach the question of nuclear power with an open mind in the months ahead. ' Surely an open mind would be an asset in trying to cope with the tangle of policy issues produced by the sudden burst of interest in nuclear power. If nuclear energy were no longer to be an isolated, esoteric technology but a commodity in the American marketplace, significant adjustments had to be made in the nation’s organic law and economic policies. But even in the more limited sphere of developing and introducing the new technology itself, Strauss and the Commission faced an impressive array of imponderables. Many of these questions were related to the process of technological innovation: How does one best go about introducing a new technology into society? A familiar problem for large manufacturers, the management of technological innovation was hardly a common function for federal officials, except in the area of regulation. The application of radio broadcasting as a new technology in the United States, for example, did not depend upon promotional efforts by the federal government, although it did require federal regulation. The introduction of commercial air travel did require fed-

eral subsidies in several forms, but the technology itself was already in

NUCLEAR POWER FOR THE MARKETPLACE

private hands. In the case of nuclear power, however, the entire technology was confined within the government in 1953. Thus, the Atomic Energy Commission faced an almost unprecedented situation in bringing nuclear reactor technology into the marketplace. The Commission had already identified the principal vehicles of innovation. These included, first, the dissemination of technical information itself, a process severely restricted by classification rules and security procedures until the new Atomic Energy Act became law in 1954. Second, the Commission had an obvious responsibility to build experimental power re-

actors and to perform basic research on potential reactor materials and nuclear processes in the national laboratories. Third, it was conceivable that the Commission might build a full-scale nuclear power reactor that would provide private industry with realistic data on operational performance and costs. Fourth, the Commission might offer to assist private in184 dustry in designing, developing, and constructing full-scale power reactors. Lastly, the Commission could provide incentives for completely independent projects by private industry to construct and operate nuclear power plants. Most of these incentives were made available in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

DISSEMINATING TECHNICAL INFORMATION

Ever since 1947 the Commission had been trying to establish effective channels for communicating technical data to private industry within the restrictions of the 1946 act. Some of the earliest efforts, which involved clearing a few corporate executives for access to classified data, were too small to be effective; but by 1950 some useful data were reaching industry through the Oak Ridge School for Reactor Technology and the distribution of classified technical reports. Later that same year, Charles A. Thomas

had requested that industrial study teams, composed of engineers from equipment manufacturers and electric utilities, be given access to the Commission’s reactor development files so that the companies could judge for

themselves the feasibility of building nuclear power plants.” By spring 1953, three such studies had been completed, a fourth had been approved,

and even more industrial groups had asked the Commission for similar arrangements. °

With good reason the Commissioners were reluctant to accept additional study agreements. Thomas and others had used them to promote the construction of dual-purpose reactors, which could lead to undesirable subsidies to industry by exposing the government to virtually open-ended commitments to purchase the plutonium produced in such reactors at the very time that the Commission’s plutonium production capacity was beginning

NUCLEAR POWER FOR THE MARKETPLACE

to catch up with military requirements. As Lawrence R. Hafstad, the director of reactor development, wrote the commissioners in September 1953, “the blunt fact seems to be that we are now too late for the ‘dual purpose’ approach . . . and too early for the ‘power only’ approach.” In Hafstad’s Opinion, reactor technology simply was not yet well enough developed to justify large investments of private money. There was a limit to what industry could learn from paper studies, and more studies were unlikely to produce new information.* Not until the new act was passed in 1954 would it be possible to open new channels of technical information for industry.

SEARCH FOR A PROGRAM

In opposing the encouragement of industrial study groups, Hafstad recognized that the Commission would have to respond in some other way to the 185 growing public demand for rapid development of civilian nuclear power. A veteran administrator of government research and development projects,

Hafstad had directed the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, which had produced the proximity fuse and other military technology dur-

ing World War II. After the war he had served with Vannevar Bush as executive secretary of the research and development board in the Department of Defense before becoming director of the Commission’s reactor development division early in 1949. Hafstad’s ability and reputation as a physicist had enabled him to hold his own with the prestigious and influential members of the general advisory committee while his down-to-earth, practical approach as an engineer had assured him good relationships with the Commissioners and the staff.°

Since 1950 Hafstad had been steering a middle course between those who advocated a government-dominated reactor program, concentrating on military projects, and those who urged an accelerated civilian power program, relying heavily on private industry for reactor development. Hafstad had been caught in the cross-fire between these opposing views before, but never had his position been more uncomfortable than it was during the

summer of 1953. While executives from large corporations spoke confidently of private industry’s ability to take over development of civilian nuclear power at the public hearings before the Joint Committee in June and July, members of the committee openly questioned industry’s willingness to invest substantially without some clear indication that nuclear power was economically feasible. Democratic members of the Joint Committee, led by Congressmen Chet Holifield and Melvin Price, pressed the Commission impatiently for a vigorous development effort that would lead to operating a full-scale nuclear power plant within a few years. At the end of the hearings Chairman Cole, in an essentially bipartisan action, requested the Commis-

NUCLEAR POWER FOR THE MARKETPLACE

sion formulate “a three to five year program consisting of specific research and development projects—perhaps including construction items.” °

REACTORS FOR THE MILITARY

Hafstad faced several difficulties in attempting to respond to the committee’s request. The Commission’s reactor development program was already

heavily committed to military propulsion reactors for the Navy and Air Force. The military projects not only preempted a substantial portion of available funds as well as scarce resources in the national laboratories but also tended to preoccupy the reactor development staff, to the detriment of the civilian power program. Members of Hafstad’s staff were sometimes intimidated by the uphill fight against the established military projects. So

186 strong was the military emphasis, in fact, that the Commission commonly referred to the remainder of its reactor development projects as the “civilian power program.” The strong military orientation of the reactor program was largely the result of Captain Hyman G. Rickover’s extraordinary impact as chief of the naval reactors branch. Since 1948, when Rickover had succeeded in establishing himself as both a Commission official and head of the Navy’s nuclear propulsion program, he had carried within the Commission’s headquarters

as much weight as some division directors and certainly more than any other branch chief. Totally committed to the task of bringing nuclear propulsion to the fleet, Rickover worked relentlessly to assemble within his personal control all the elements of an effective development program. By

skillfully capitalizing on his dual function for the Commission and the Navy, Rickover had won for himself an unusual degree of independence from both organizations before Hafstad became director of the division. Although Rickover was careful always to comply with the formal procedures of the bureaucratic system, he took full advantage of the inattention, indifference, or mistakes of other officials to build between the Commission and the Navy an independent and (except for funding) self-sufficient develop-

ment enterprise. An important step in this struggle for autonomy was Rickover’s success in acquiring Commission laboratories whose entire mission was tied to

his program. In 1949 and 1950 he had had no choice but to use Argonne National Laboratory to generate the scientific and technical data needed to fix the basic design of the first submarine reactor, but by 1953 he had transferred almost all work to the Bettis Laboratory, which the Commission established near Pittsburgh exclusively for the navy project. In 1950 Rickover had helped the reactor development staff to terminate an unpromising project that General Electric had been pursuing to develop a power-breeder

NUCLEAR POWER FOR THE MARKETPLACE

reactor and had used this opportunity to bring the company into the navy program as a second major development contractor. With General Electric

and its staff of experienced engineers and managers came the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, which the company had established with Commission funds as a center for developing nuclear power reactors. Although the company fought to retain at least a portion of Knolls for this purpose, Rickover eventually succeeded in excluding all activities not related to his project.®

Although Westinghouse and General Electric performed their work under Commission contracts, all technical supervision and much contract administration came from Rickover’s office in Washington. Rickover’s staff even followed the work of Westinghouse and General Electric subcontractors and took a direct interest in negotiating and administering procurement contracts for critical materials. On major policy or budget issues, Rickover

had the initiative; Hafstad and the Commissioners usually endorsed his 187 recommendations. Even on routine administrative actions, the Commission staff learned to give Rickover’s requests special attention. Administrative control was not an end in itself for Rickover; it assured him an effective voice in technical matters. In the early years Rickover had devoted an enormous amount of his time and effort to building a

staff that was fully competent in nuclear science and technology. He insisted that members of his staff be prepared to review every technical decision by Westinghouse, General Electric, or any other contractor and report back with comments or criticisms for further study. Rickover focused unrelentingly on the technical unknowns or obstacles that stood in the way of successful development, and this focus took precedence over organizational relationships or the status of individuals. Rickover did not relieve contractors of their responsibilities for producing according to their contracts, but he never hesitated to intervene at any point to make sure that wrong decisions and mistakes were not threatening scheduled programs. Rickover and his staff were as unyielding and unforgiving as was the technology they were attempting to master.” This highly aggressive and uncompromising style of management did not win Rickover many friends among the reactor development staff, laboratory directors, field managers, naval officers, or company officials; but his

extraordinary performance against the most challenging schedules made him a force that could not be denied. Rickover himself had played a part in establishing a Navy commitment to have a nuclear submarine ready for sea by January |, 1955. This goal required him to accomplish in five years with a completely new technology a task that often had taken as many as fifteen years in the Navy. By eliminating small reactor experiments and mock-ups, Rickover had dared to strike out simultaneously to build landbased prototypes of two types of propulsion systems: the Mark I version of

NUCLEAR POWER FOR THE MARKETPLACE

the submarine thermal reactor, which Westinghouse developed at Bettis, and the Mark A version of the submarine intermediate reactor, which Gen-

eral Electric developed at Knolls. Because Mark I and Mark A had the same configurations and power capabilities of the proposed shipboard plants, their successful operation would provide some assurance that the shipboard units would work. Fighting against time, Rickover and his staff had the Mark I prototype operating at the Commission’s Idaho test site in March 1953. Several months of testing revealed no major flaws, and on June 25 Mark I began a full-power test that Rickover continued until the plant had generated enough power to carry a submarine across the Atlantic. This magnificent achievement, perhaps more than any other single event, convinced government officials and members of the Joint Committee that nuclear power was a reality. Now it seemed possible that with some luck and hard work, Rickover might actually have the Mark II plant operating

188 in the submarine Nautilus by late 1954. At the same time, General Electric was making good progress on the Mark A prototype at West Milton, New York, and Bettis had already started engineering studies for the submarine

advanced reactor, which would include many improvements over the Nautilus plant.'° Although the Navy project caused Hafstad some headaches, it was by no means so troubling as the joint effort with the Air Force to develop nuclear propulsion systems for military aircraft. Since 1946 some Air Force officers had dreamed of using nuclear power to provide essentially unlimited range for a bomber carrying nuclear weapons. During the overly exuberant early days at Oak Ridge, aircraft companies under Air Force contracts were eager to design airframes and jet engines for such a plane even before any concept of the nuclear power plant had been developed. Designing a reactor with sufficient power and reliability and at the same time light enough and with sufficient shielding against radiation proved no easy task. By 1953 the Commission was spending more than $17 million per year on two types of propulsion systems: one by General Electric, in which air from the turbines would be heated directly in the reactor core, and a second at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which would use as a heat source a reactor fueled with a liquid mixture of fused salts containing uranium. Liquid sodium would carry heat from the reactor to a heat exchanger. The Truman budget for fiscal year 1954 proposed a substantial increase that would have brought total expenditures by the Commission and the Air Force close to $94 million per year. The Eisenhower Administration, in its quest for budget reductions, had cut the project back to $15.3 million in Commission funds and $9.4 million from the Air Force, figures not much below actual costs in the previous year. The cuts moved the several projects back from pilot plants and prototypes to fundamental experiments. The continuing lack of coherence in the aircraft program proved that

NUCLEAR POWER FOR THE MARKETPLACE

there was nothing magical about the organization of the Navy project. In a deliberate effort to copy the Rickover pattern, the Air Force and the Commission had set up a joint project with an Air Force officer, Brigadier General Donald J. Keirn, to serve in a dual capacity much as Rickover did. By summer of 1953, however, it was evident that Keirn, despite his considerable abilities and experience, had probably taken the reins too late to bring order out of chaos. Lacking both a clear focus and a promising technical base, the aircraft program was doomed to continuing frustration. '?

REACTOR EXPERIMENTS

In responding to the Joint Committee’s request for a short-term commitment on civilian power reactors, Hafstad had to consider the reactor experiments

that the Commission was already planning or building. The problem was 189 that, although some of these projects had been started years earlier, none could possibly lead to an economic power reactor in three to five years, no matter how much the Joint Committee insisted on quick results. In fact, as Hafstad pointed out to the Commissioners in September 1953, five years was too short a period for effective planning, much less constructing reactors. '2 The reactor experiments that the Commission had first authorized in 1948 were only the beginning of a long-term development process. In one

sense, these experiments represented a judicious and commendably conservative approach to nuclear power. By building a series of small, relatively inexpensive reactor experiments, each using a theoretically promising approach to the design of a power reactor, the Commission hoped that it could evaluate the relative advantages of several designs before heavily committing to constructing full-scale reactors. Approaching innovation on a broad front in the early stages of development was precisely the strategy

that Vannevar Bush and James B. Conant had advocated with stunning success in producing fissionable material for the first atomic weapon.

Despite the compelling inner logic of the broad front approach, it had substantial disadvantages for the Commission in summer 1953. Most obviously, none of these experiments could conceivably produce significant amounts of power. With luck, one of them might justify starting work on an actual power reactor in five or ten years. Coupled with the broad front, the experimental approach suggested to the uninitiated timidity and indecisive-

ness within the Commission. Second, the Commission’s approach reinforced certain Joint Committee and public misconceptions about the nature of technological development. For example, some thought that a small reactor experiment would tell the engineers most of what they needed to know to build a power reactor; however, although the experiment often produced

valuable clues, it almost never revealed a clear pathway to success. The

NUCLEAR POWER FOR THE MARKETPLACE

popular assumption, frequently expressed in Joint Committee hearings, was

that the progression from reactor experiment, to pilot plant, and then to full-scale power reactor was not only direct but automatic. As many reactor

engineers had already learned, even the successful operation of a reactor experiment did not necessarily warrant further development. These misconceptions originated in another popularly accepted assumption: the familiar pathways of development in chemical engineering provided an adequate model for reactor technology. In the past, engineers had enjoyed notable success in translating the results of an experiment in a chemistry laboratory into an efficient industrial process. In reactor technology, however, the phenomena involved were just as complicated, and the number of nontechnical variables was much larger. As in chemical engineering, scientific data were essential to developing reactor technology, but they were far from sufficient. Still in its early stages, reactor technology

190 also required a large measure of creative and imaginative engineering to make the transition from experimental reactor to proven reactor. Most Commission experience since 1947 testified to these limitations of the reactor experiment. The most publicized effort of this type by 1953 was the experimental breeder reactor, which Walter H. Zinn and his Argonne team had built at the Commission’s Idaho test site. The experiment, in generating token amounts of electric power in late 1951, had first suggested to the American public that nuclear power was imminent. The experiment also demonstrated that breeding was at least theoretically possible. But the reactor, despite its success as an experiment, did not open the way to a practical power source. The facility verified scientific princi-

ples; it did not address the host of extraordinarily difficult engineering problems involved in extracting useful energy from a power source of very high density with a liquid-metal coolant. In 1952, following the successful operation of the experiment, the Commission had approved simultaneous

studies of an intermediate-scale breeder by Argonne and a full-scale breeder by the California Research and Development Company. The Commission, however, was unable to convince the Bureau of the Budget that

this next step was likely to lead to concrete results, and the plan was dropped. 8 The efforts of Alvin Weinberg and his staff at Oak Ridge to develop a homogeneous reactor had experienced a similar fate. Oak Ridge had built

a homogeneous experiment, which in 1953 had generated a few watts of electric power and had demonstrated the principle of operation. The distinctive advantage of such a reactor was that it avoided the expensive process of fabricating fuel elements, moderator, control rods, and other high-precision core components by placing a fluid mixture of fissionable material, moderator, and coolant in a tank of proper configuration to produce a critical mass. Energy could be extracted simply by pumping the

NUCLEAR POWER FOR THE MARKETPLACE

fluid through external heat exchangers, and, theoretically at least, the reactor could be refueled by continuously reprocessing the fluid without shutting down the system. Thus, the system held out the possibility of very low

costs and high efficiency in heat transfer. In the eyes of many nuclear scientists and engineers these advantages made the homogeneous reactor potentially the most promising of all types under study, but once again the experiment did not reveal how the tricky problems of handling a highly radioactive and corrosive fluid were to be resolved. Weinberg’s next step was not to be a power reactor but merely another experiment of slightly larger size with design improvements that might make continuous operation possible. '*

Of all the promising reactor types, the Commission’s laboratories had the most experience with water reactors, in which either ordinary water or heavy water served as both moderator and coolant. Argonne had taken

the lead in developing heavy-water reactors, not for power generation, but 19] for plutonium production at Savannah River. The high cost of heavy water and the availability of enriched uranium from the gaseous-diffusion plants, however, did not make this type attractive for power generation. Of much greater interest was the light-water reactor, which Weinberg and others had suggested at Oak Ridge during World War II. The materials testing reactor, developed cooperatively by Oak Ridge and Argonne, used the light-water

system, and Rickover had adopted light water for the Mark I prototype (and, of course, for the Mark II as well). !° In all these light-water applications, the moderator-coolant was kept

under pressure to prevent boiling, and special care was taken to design reactors so that no local boiling would occur. There was some concern among engineers that boiling within the reactor might either cause voids, “hot spots,” that would affect reactivity or lead to oscillations that could produce destructive power surges. In his quest for a reliable propulsion system, Rickover had selected the pressurized water system for the aircraft carrier reactor as well as for Mark I, Mark II, and the submarine advanced reactor. The decision by the Eisenhower Administration to convert the carrier reactor into a civilian system meant that the Commission’s first fullscale power plant would use pressurized water. '© Logic suggested, however, that a boiling-water reactor would have a higher thermal efficiency than a pressurized system. For that reason it was only a matter of time before someone investigated this possibility. Early in 1950 Samuel Untermyer at Argonne suggested that steam formation in the core of a light-water reactor during a power excursion might actually shut down the reactor. If this were true, it might be possible to build a power reactor actually using boiling as a control mechanism. A series of experiments at Argonne with electrically heated fuel elements immersed in water gave promising results on heat transfer and steam formation. To provide

NUCLEAR POWER FOR THE MARKETPLACE

data on the effect of steam voids on instability Untermyer proposed construction of a reactor experiment at the Idaho test site. Joseph R. Dietrich

and others at Argonne designed the boiling reactor experiment, called Borax-I, that operated successfully at just about the time the Joint Committee issued its request for a reactor plan in summer 1953. Borax-I showed

not only that a boiling reactor had a high degree of inherent safety in its ability to shut itself down, but also that it could operate stably. '’ When the Commission came to formulating the five-year reactor program, the boiling water reactor would certainly be an option to consider.

THE ROLE OF INDUSTRY

The centerpiece of the Commission’s five-year program as it developed in

192 autumn of 1953 was to be the pressurized-water reactor, which Murray and Dean had managed to salvage from the demise of the carrier propulsion project. With Eisenhower’s approval and the National Security Council’s acquiescence, the Commission had decided in June that the quickest way to build a full-scale nuclear power plant would be to give Rickover the tasks of stripping the naval features from the carrier propulsion project, which Westinghouse had already started at Bettis, and developing the basic design for power purposes. The decision, however, was inherently too controversial to be made so easily. When Strauss succeeded Dean as chairman just two weeks later, the issue was ripe for reopening, especially since the Commission had not yet announced the decision. The first move for reconsideration came from

the reactor development staff itself at a Commission meeting on July 9, 1953. Hafstad’s assistants made a plea for a reactor that would be large enough to have a chance of being economical. Rickover countered that argument by insisting that the power rating was limited by the size of the pressure vessel, which approached the limits of power plant technology at that time. He could not, however, respond so easily to the implications of a letter that arrived from the Joint Committee by special messenger during the course of the meeting. In the letter Cole notified the Commission that his appeal to the House Appropriations Committee for construction funds

for the pressurized-water reactor had been approved. Thus, in Cole’s words, the project had been “initiated by the Congress,” and for that reason the Joint Committee had “a more than usual interest” in it. Cole also expressed concern about the “heavy emphasis” on naval aspects. The implications were clear: the Joint Committee intended to see that the Commission built a full-scale power reactor and that Rickover did not dominate it for his own purposes. '®

Rickover interpreted the letter as a challenge to his own role in the

NUCLEAR POWER FOR THE MARKETPLACE

project, but he told Murray on July 13 that he was more concerned about rumors of industry opposition. Murray confirmed this report in a call to Willis Gale, chairman of the Commonwealth Edison Company of Chicago. Murray held firm on the Commission’s decision to build the reactor under Rickover’s direction, but he did invite Commonwealth Edison and other utilities to join the project. Gale made it clear that he was not interested in sending a few engineers to work under Rickover, but he was enthusiastic about Murray’s earlier suggestion that several other electric utilities join Commonwealth Edison in building a nuclear power plant. At the moment, however, Gale and his associates seemed much more interested in a heavywater reactor than in the Commission’s proposal. !°

Murray still believed that no one company could afford to build a nuclear power plant without some hope that it would be economically competitive, but he had to admit that Gale was assembling an impressive group

of companies. The Nuclear Power Group, as it came to be called, included 193 some of the largest electric utility companies in the nation: the American Gas and Electric Service Corporation of New York City, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company of San Francisco, and the Union Electric Company of St. Louis. Also part of the group was the Bechtel Corporation of San Francisco, one of the nation’s largest construction firms for conventional power plants. Although Murray was willing to entertain serious proposals from such groups, he was not ready to permit vague expressions of interest to undermine the Commission’s decision to build a pressurized-water reactor under Rickover’s control. To ratify that decision, Murray urged Strauss to issue a press release, preferably one from the White House. After Moscow radio on August 19 revealed the detonation of Joe 4, Murray urged the Commission not to lose the enormous propaganda advantage of responding to the Soviet saber rattling with a declaration of the United States’ intention to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Strauss, however, continued to procrastinate, perhaps as a caution against Murray’s exuberance, perhaps to get a better feel for the Commission’s policy stance during his first weeks as chairman. Strauss himself told Murray that he was simply trying to make sure that the plant was built at minimum cost.” While Murray continued to press the Commission to announce its decision on the pressurized-water reactor, he also pursued discussions with the Nuclear Power Group in hopes that it would join the project. Murray could do this with the Commission’s blessing following approval of a study agreement with the group on August 20. Further discussions with Philip Sporn of American Gas and Electric encouraged Murray to believe that the Nuclear Power Group might agree to build and operate the reactor at a site near Portsmouth, Ohio, where the facility might provide some of the enormous quantities of electric power needed to operate the new gaseousdiffusion plant. He predicted that, once the Commission announced its

NUCLEAR POWER FOR THE MARKETPLACE

decision to build the plant, the Nuclear Power Group would offer to meet one-third of the costs for the steam system and turbogenerator, which might total $10 million.?!

NUCLEAR POWER AND NATIONAL SECURITY

By mid-October rumors of the Commission’s decision were beginning to leak to the press, and Strauss could no longer put off Murray’s insistence

upon an announcement. In a dramatic speech before an electric utility convention in Chicago on October 22, 1953, Murray announced that the Commission would build a full-scale power reactor capable of producing at

least 60,000 kilowatts of electricity. The drama of the speech, however, came, not from this statement of fact, but rather from Murray’s effort to put

194. the decision in context. He took the occasion to reiterate every argument he had used over the previous six months when internally discussing nuclear power policy and the role of industry. Attaining economical nuclear power, in Murray’s opinion, was just as vital to national security as the United States’ preeminence in nuclear weapons. Friendly nations were counting on the United States not only to protect them from Soviet aggression but also to supply them with nuclear power technology. In fact, Murray pointed out, some of these nations (he did not name Belgium and South Africa) provided the United States with uranium ores essential for building the nuclear arsenal. “Unless we embark on an all-out attack on our nuclear power program immediately, we may be deprived of foreign uranium ores.” Thus “the atomic arms race and the nuclear industrial power race |were] strangely related.” ””

Having evoked this starkly pragmatic argument, Murray explained the background for the Commission’s decision going back to the nuclear power statement in spring 1953. Murray assured his audience that as a business man in private life, no one was more anxious than he to end “nationalization” of atomic energy. But he was convinced, along with most of the Commission, that the federal government had to build the first fullscale plant; only then would the skills and competitive motivations of private industry be effective. Thus, the Commissioners’ decision to build the pressurized-water reactor was only an interim measure, merely a first step toward establishing the new industry. In the meantime, the pressurizedwater reactor would be America’s answer to the recent Soviet thermonuclear

test. “For years,” Murray concluded, “the splitting atom, packaged in weapons has been our main shield against the Barbarians—now, in addition, it is to become a God-given instrument to do the constructive work of mankind.” U.S. News and World Report summarized the message for the busy reader:

NUCLEAR POWER FOR THE MARKETPLACE

Atomic power for industry is on the way. An international race for supremacy has started. Britain, with one atomic-power project, is in the race. Russia probably is starting. Now the U.S. is jumping in. Plan is for a full-scale atom-power plant at a big atomic-materials center. If it works, as expected, U.S. will keep its atomic lead.

Time called the announcement “a new phase” of the atomic age, and the New York Times Magazine forecasted the age of atomic power.”

THE FIVE-YEAR PROGRAM

By the time Murray delivered his Chicago speech, the Commissioners were already well on their way to formulating the five-year development program

that the Joint Committee had requested. At the policy conference at White 195 Sulphur Springs in September 1953, Hafstad had presented the full scope of the issues that the Commission faced in developing nuclear power for the marketplace. Hafstad’s alternatives ranged all the way from a plan for developing nuclear power by private industry, using as much as $200 million in federal funds over the five-year period, to a government-controlled program centered in the Commission’s national laboratories.”* As Murray’s speech revealed, Commission thinking was much closer to the second extreme than to the first. Three projects in the five-year program represented continuing efforts by the Commission’s national laboratories and were completely under government control: the fast-breeder and boiling-water experiments at Argonne and the homogeneous reactor experiment at Oak Ridge. One concept, the sodium-graphite reactor, would be pursued by North American Aviation, Incorporated, as the only example of a private development effort financed by the Commission. The fifth project, the pressurized-water reactor, was government-sponsored and directed, with the degree of participation by private industry to be determined by the response to the Commission's invitation of December 7, 1953, for proposals to invest in the project.”° The classified report of more than 130 pages, which the Commission delivered to the Joint Committee in February 1954, outlined in detail the rationale for selecting the design concepts to be developed. The report included reasonably candid evaluations of the status of each concept. The pressurized-water reactor seemed most likely to be successful in the short term, by the end of 1957, but it offered a poor long-term prospect of producing economic nuclear power. Argonne’s next step beyond the Borax tests would be an experimental boiling-water reactor to be built at the [hnois laboratory. Because the concept was new, the boiling-water reactor

would not be ready for large-scale testing for at least five years, but it

NUCLEAR POWER FOR THE MARKETPLACE

showed more promise of achieving competitive power than the pressurizedwater reactor. The first step toward the sodium-graphite reactor was to be the sodium reactor experiment, which North American would build at the company’s site in Santa Susana, California. Because, like the pressurizedwater reactor, the sodium reactor experiment could take advantage of relatively well-developed technology, the experiment was likely to prove suc-

cessful in the short term but did not hold great promise for generating economic nuclear power. As for the fast breeder, Argonne had scaled down

its plan for developing medium- and full-size plants simultaneously and had decided to build a second experimental breeder reactor at the Idaho testing station, where the first breeder was still operating. Oak Ridge intended to take a similarly modest step toward a homogeneous reactor by building a second experiment at the Tennessee laboratory. Both the homogeneous and fast-breeder projects were unlikely to result in significant

196 breakthroughs in the short term, but there was widespread agreement that these types were the most promising approaches to the commercial power plants of the future. The Commission expected to spend $8.5 million per

year on research and development, while the five experimental plants would cost $200 million.”°

SHIPPINGPORT

A careful review of the proposed five-year program on February 5, 1954, led the Joint Committee to the conclusion that the plan was sound and deserved support. The only reservation concerned the wisdom of building the pressurized-water reactor as a full-scale plant when it had no chance of generating economic power. Holifield wanted to make certain that, if the project were terminated, Hafstad would not be tempted to substitute one of the more promising reactors. Hafstad assured him that other types, such as the homogeneous or boiling-water reactors, although more promising in the long run, were not ready for full-scale construction at that time. Holifield found more reassurance in the fact that Rickover had now scaled down the estimated cost of the pressurized-water reactor to $52 million, but he was still concerned that some scientists who opposed the Commission’s decision to build the reactor might later accuse the Joint Committee of wasting the money on what the members knew was going to be an uneconomic reactor. With Hafstad’s assurance that the project was sound, Holifield and the committee were willing to proceed, but they wanted to review the situation again after the responses to the Commission’s invitation for proposals from industry had been evaluated. *’ Even before the February 15 deadline, the Commission had eliminated the Nuclear Power Group, which in November had submitted an offer to provide trained personnel, build the conventional electrical generating

NUCLEAR POWER FOR THE MARKETPLACE

portions of the plant, and operate the plant. The estimated financial contribution by the group, however, was so small that the Commission had no choice but to reject it. With that rejection, the last hope for construction of

the nation’s first commercial nuclear power plant by private industry disappeared. ”*

Of the nine offers received by the February deadline, the one from the Duquesne Light Company of Pittsburgh was clearly superior. The company offered to build a new plant on a site it owned in Shippingport, Pennsylvania, on the Ohio River twenty-five miles northwest of Pittsburgh. At no cost to the government, Duquesne offered to provide the site, build the turbogenerator plant, and operate and maintain the entire facility. The company also agreed to assume $5 million of the cost of developing and building the reactor, which Westinghouse would design and the Commission would own. For the steam delivered by the reactor the company was willing

to pay the equivalent of eight mills per kilowatt-hour, a comparatively high 197 price. Hafstad’s staff estimated that over the course of the five-year contract Duquesne’s contribution would be more than $30 million, compared to $24 million for the next most attractive proposal. Also, under the Duquesne offer

the Commission could cancel the contract at any time without incurring termination charges.” As General Manager Nichols told the Joint Committee on March 12, 1954, the Duquesne proposal was almost too good to believe. He was con-

vinced that the company had extended itself to make an attractive offer simply because Duquesne wanted to get in on the ground floor in nuclear power. Patiently Nichols reviewed every project in the five-year plan and assured the committee that only the pressurized-water reactor was ready for full-scale construction. The decision to build the plant, however, did not mean that the other projects would be neglected. The decision, Nichols said, might actually spur the other projects to new efforts, and he did not

rule out the possibility that in another year another approach might be ready for full-scale construction.

In the course of the discussion Representative Carl Hinshaw, the only engineer on the Joint Committee, raised a new and intriguing question: Had the Commission considered the international implications of the fiveyear program? As Murray had suggested in his Chicago speech, the Commission was developing power reactors not just for domestic use but also for friendly nations abroad. Had the Commission thought about what type of reactor would be best suited for export? Smyth replied that the Commis-

sion had discussed the subject without coming to any conclusion, but he did make some personal observations after determining that it was permissible to speak on classified matters. The facts were that the United States could offer to export either heavy-water or light-water reactors under the Atoms-for-Peace program. Heavy-water reactors might be more attractive to European nations because they could probably obtain supplies of heavy

NUCLEAR POWER FOR THE MARKETPLACE

water and natural uranium without depending on the United States. If, however, the United States selected light-water reactors for export, the Commission would have to supply the slightly enriched uranium fuel because no European countries were likely to make the heavy financial commitment necessary to build an enrichment plant. One advantage, then, of

using light-water reactors for export, Smyth noted, was that the United States could control both the supply of uranium fuel elements and also reprocessing of spent fuel. This leverage could be important in assuring reliable safeguards against the diversion of fissionable material. *°

NUCLEAR POWER AND ATOMS FOR PEACE

While the Joint Committee continued to press the Commission on develop-

198 ing commercial power reactors, the Eisenhower Administration was exerting similar demands from the sanctuary of the National Security Council. In the summer of 1954 the council’s planning board, on which Roy Snapp represented the Commission, began to formulate the specific measures for following through on the President’s Atoms-for-Peace proposal. Efforts to create the International Atomic Energy Agency and to organize an international conference on the peaceful uses of atomic energy were high on the list. But the planning board expected nuclear power to offer a practical goal for international cooperation. Snapp and his colleagues recognized that economic nuclear power was still at least a decade away and that most countries had neither the trained personnel nor the resources to support its development. It did seem feasible, however, that the United States could provide small experimental or training reactors with limited amounts of slightly enriched uranium as fuel. By suggesting that experience with research reactors was an essential

step in achieving technical capability for building power reactors, the United States could gain time for resolving the difficult policy questions involved in selling power reactors abroad.*! As Strauss pointed out to the National Security Council on August 12, 1954, the United States could not avoid the issue for very long. Countries

with critical shortages of power, like Sweden and Japan, might want to move quickly toward nuclear energy. How would the United States decide which countries would receive the limited assistance that the United States would be able to provide? And how could the United States prevent the diversion of fissionable material produced in power reactors to nonpeaceful purposes? *”

To answer these and other questions the planning board appointed a subcommittee under Snapp’s direction to draft a policy statement. Drawing heavily upon the Commission’s staff for ideas and opinions, Snapp com-

NUCLEAR POWER FOR THE MARKETPLACE

pleted his paper before the end of 1954. Cautionary in tone, the statement first contained the warning voiced by Commissioner Murray and members of the staff that the operation of research reactors was not an essential step in the development of power reactors as the planning board’s August draft had implied. Although a research reactor in a foreign country might help to train scientists and engineers in nuclear technology, the research reactor itself would not reveal much about the design of a power reactor. Second, Snapp and the Commission took a dim view of building a full-scale power

reactor, like the Shippingport plant, in a foreign country; such a plant would be neither economical nor reliable for continuous and fault-free operation. In fact, the project might do the cause of nuclear power more harm than good.*?

Throughout fall 1954 and into winter 1955, however, the Commission had to contend with the persistent hope expressed by State Department

officials and other members of the planning board that nuclear power might 199 be the key to a successful Atoms-for-Peace program. No sooner did the Commission deflate one idea than the planning board came up with another. By the time Snapp’s policy paper reached the National Security Council itself, it advocated, not the construction of a Shippingport reactor abroad, but a cooperative effort by scientists and engineers from friendly nations to construct an experimental power reactor in the United States.** Strauss rose in the National Security Council on February 10, 1955, to oppose this idea. Such a project would result in hopeless confusion, a “tower of Babel”; but even worse, it would give foreign scientists access to the most advanced United States designs for power reactors. This argument appealed to Secretary of Defense Wilson, who hoped that such advantages would be reserved for American industry. On the other side were Secretary of State Dulles and United Nations Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, who, although not questioning the Commission’s technical appraisal of the idea, expressed concern that the Administration still had not come up with one solid project that would clearly support the President’s commitment to nuclear power in his United Nations speech. Strauss argued that the training and assistance programs already launched would do much more for Atoms for Peace than would the experimental reactor. Eisenhower agreed that the reactor idea was just a “gimmick.” No decision would be made until Strauss had completed a comprehensive report on the status of nuclear power.”

NEW HORIZONS

International implications were not the Commission’s only concern in reactor development policy in 1954. Equally pressing were the requirements of the new Atomic Energy Act, which became law in August. Nichols had

NUCLEAR POWER FOR THE MARKETPLACE

already asked the staff to begin thinking about the administrative structure and regulations required to transform the government’s near-monopoly of nuclear energy into a new commercial industry. Before the end of the summer, Nichols established several task forces within the staff to begin drafting the series of required regulations and procedures.*° The task forces included one or more experienced attorneys from the general counsel’s office and appropriate specialists from the program or staff divisions. To supervise and coordinate the work of the task forces, Nichols selected Harold L. Price, a crusty, conservative lawyer who had been a mainstay of the legal staff since Manhattan Project days at Oak Ridge. Thoroughly professional to the point of being impersonal, Price was not the sort who would have been picked to be general counsel, but he was a conscientious and reliable practitioner of the legal art.*’ He had drafted much of the atomic energy legislation enacted since 1947, including crucial sections of the 1954 act.

200 Price could be relied upon to do the job right without yielding to pressures for expediency even if they came from the Commissioners, industry, or members of Congress. The Commission had no intention, however, of waiting for Price to construct the new regulatory framework before encouraging direct private

participation in nuclear power development. Strauss in particular was driven by the National Security Council directive, which placed a high priority on nuclear power to be developed with private rather than government funds. Although Strauss accepted the necessity of the five-year program and the Shippingport reactor to get commercialization started, the Commission had been criticized for recommending government control in these

two instances. Beyond that, both Strauss and his fellow Commissioners were sensitive to the repeated claims by industry executives, particularly in the Nuclear Power Group, that private companies were ready to make the substantial financial commitments necessary to build a full-scale nuclear plant. The Commissioners were ready to call what they considered industry’s bluff by soliciting proposals for joint or full participation.**

During autumn 1954, Nichols worked with Price, Hafstad, and Don 5. Burrows, the Commission’s controller, in designing an acceptable form of solicitation. Because Nichols and his associates entertained almost no hope that industry would undertake to build full-scale plants without some government support, Burrows had to make some provisions for funding in the 1956 budget, which was then in the final stages of preparation. Informal discussions at the Bureau of the Budget had encountered considerable skepticism about the Commission’s request for $50 million in operating funds and $25 million for construction to stimulate industrial partici-

pation. Bureau officials wondered whether this kind of stimulation was warranted so soon after passage of the 1954 act, especially when Nichols admitted that there was no urgent domestic need for nuclear power. The

NUCLEAR POWER FOR THE MARKETPLACE

motivation, Nichols said, was the Atoms-for-Peace program and the inter-

national race with the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom for world leadership in the new technology.* To support the budget request, Nichols sent the Commissioners a brief staff paper on December 13, 1954. He suggested a power demonstration reactor program, under which private companies would be invited to design, build, and operate their own nuclear power plants with only limited assistance and funding from the Commission. The Commission would waive all fuel-use charges for seven years, although industry would be required to pay for fissionable material actually consumed in the reactors. The companies could perform some work in Commission laboratories and would enter into contracts that would provide fixed amounts of funding for development, fabrication, and experimental plant operation. All proposals were to be submitted by April 1, 1955, and would be evaluated in terms of their

probable contribution to achieving economically competitive power, the 201 cost to the Commission of fuels and materials, the risk assumed by industry, and the competence and responsibility of the proposer.” Most discussion at the Commission meeting on December 21, 1954, centered on the April 1 deadline. Two Commissioners thought the short deadline would eliminate companies that were not already involved as contractors or members of industrial study groups. Nichols admitted this danger, but he thought it essential to have some replies in hand when he defended the $75-million budget request before Congressional committees in spring 1955. Informal discussions with industry leaders led Nichols to believe that there would be at least three proposals, an estimate on which he had based the $75-miliion request. He assured the Commissioners that they could issue a second invitation in autumn 1955 if all of the funds were not committed in response to the first.” In retrospect it is difficult to understand how a paper with such farreaching consequences could win Commission approval so easily. The power demonstration reactor program was, after all, the most decisive step the Commission had yet taken toward creating a nuclear industry. The plan was intended to draw private enterprise into the complex and usually controversial relationships that were part of the process of federal licensing and regulation. The five-year program had focused entirely on technological development; it did not involve private enterprise. Shippingport was really a government project with only a limited role for private industry. With power demonstration reactors the Commission would finally begin to cross the dividing line between government monopoly and private enterprise. Yet the Commission approved Nichols’s idea without considering its economic or political implications. Perhaps the quick decision was a tribute to Nichols’s firm management of the staff, but more likely it resulted from the general manager’s cool and competent presentation. Nichols re-

NUCLEAR POWER FOR THE MARKETPLACE

duced the decision to the practical perspective of the engineer-administrator. The plan seemed a sensible first step toward a distant goal, a step that the Bureau of the Budget and the Congress could understand and appreciate. It was not cast as a major policy decision. Certainly there was good common sense in Nichols’s tactics, but there were dangers in this casual, almost tentative approach. It opened the possibility that the Commission would have to resolve in public many specific issues it had not settled in the comfortable confines of the conference room on Constitution Avenue.

NEW FACES ON THE JOINT COMMITTEE

Strauss had every reason to anticipate controversy when he next met with the Joint Committee. Democratic victories in the 1954 fall elections de-

202 prived the Republicans of Congressional control after two short years. Within the Joint Committee the shift in power was reflected in both leadership and membership. Following the pattern established in 1953, the committee chairmanship now reverted from the House to the Senate, where the ranking Democrat was Clinton P. Anderson of New Mexico. A member

of the Joint Committee since 1951, the former Secretary of Agriculture under Truman had become a prominent critic of the Eisenhower Adminis-

tration for its efforts to enlarge private industry’s role in nuclear power development at the expense of government projects. Although Anderson’s initial impression of Strauss was favorable, that opinion had begun to deteriorate following the Democrats’ failure to kill the Dixon-Yates proposal in summer 1953, and Murray’s ever more pointed attacks on Strauss hastened the process. The Republican stalwarts on the Senate side were still

to be reckoned with: Hickenlooper, Eugene D. Millikan of Colorado, Knowland, and Bricker. They were matched by Democrats John O. Pastore

of Rhode Island, Albert Gore of Tennessee, and Henry M. Jackson of Washington, who was returning to the committee after previous service as a congressman. On the House side the leaders were the same— Holifield

and Price for the Democrats and Cole and Hinshaw for the Republicans—but the 1954 elections gave the Democrats a dominant position. The aggressive and experienced leadership already demonstrated by the Democratic members of the committee foreshadowed a sharp challenge to the Eisenhower Administration and its nuclear policies. Soon after the new Democratic Congress convened in January 1955, Senator Anderson set out to reverse the action of the lame-duck Republican majority, which in November 1954 had waived the thirty-day waiting period for Joint Committee consideration of all electric utility contracts so that the Dixon- Yates agreement could be signed before the Democrats took over. On January 28, 1955, the Joint Committee formally revoked the Republican resolution and recommended cancellation of the Dixon- Yates contract.”

NUCLEAR POWER FOR THE MARKETPLACE

THE PUBLIC FORUM

The opportunity for direct confrontation between the Commission and the committee first appeared in the hearings that Anderson called for January 31, 1955, pursuant to Section 202 of the new act. In authorizing the committee to conduct hearings on “the development, use, and control of atomic energy” during the first sixty days of each session of Congress, Section 202 gave the committee license to probe ultimately into every aspect of the Commission’s activities. That privilege, plus the mandate to pass on all authorizations for construction appropriations under Section 261, gave the Joint Committee two powerful tools with which it would influence national policy on nuclear power over the next decade. Anderson began the Joint Committee hearings on January 31 on a cordial note by extending Strauss best wishes on his birthday, and Strauss

replied by discussing the power demonstration reactor program and its re- 203 lationship to the five-year program, as the committee had requested. But later that afternoon Murray moved the hearing into a political context by charging that the Commission had been so preoccupied with the DixonYates contract in recent months that important business had been neglected. Strauss refuted the charge the next day as “unfortunate and inaccurate,” and both men proceeded to poll the staff on the actual amount of time spent on the Dixon-Yates matter since the contract had been approved in November. When Murray claimed a week later that the figure was more than two thousand hours, Strauss tried to put the facts into perspective by having a courier wheel into the hearing room a pile of boxes containing all the staff papers considered by the Commission since Dixon- Yates was first introduced a year earlier. As a contrast he showed the committee a small

folder containing all the papers coming to the Commissioners on DixonYates. This unseemly display, which caused Anderson to lose his patience, was but further evidence of the petty bickering and accusations of dishonesty that undermined relations between the two Commissioners. Under the circumstances, Anderson was not inclined to accept the charges of either antagonist, but the dispute did not enhance his confidence in Strauss. Trivial to the point of annoyance, the squabble did breed distrust and suspicion between the Commission and the Joint Committee.“ Despite the disruptive effects of the Dixon-Yates issue, Anderson and the committee were able to pursue a thoughtful and penetrating discussion of the power demonstration reactor program. Nichols provided a wellrounded justification for the Commission’s invitation as a first effort to determine the amount of government assistance that industry might require before entering the nuclear power field. The Commission was convinced, Nichols said, that industry was not yet prepared to build nuclear power plants without financial help from the government, but at the same time the Commission was determined to hold government assistance to a minimum.

NUCLEAR POWER FOR THE MARKETPLACE

If the Commission’s predictions were wrong and industry was willing to proceed alone, the Commission certainly would not stand in the way. Very close questioning of industry witnesses during the hearing sup-

ported the Commission’s rationale. Walker L. Cisler, spokesman for a group of midwestern electric utilities planning to submit a proposal under the new program, admitted that government assistance of this kind was needed to demonstrate the feasibility of nuclear power in full-scale facilities. But Cisler still maintained that industry was fully prepared after successful demonstration to take the next step on its own; he claimed that a large-scale government development program was unnecessary.” Although the Commission’s program, as Nichols argued, did attempt to respond to the realities of the situation, it had the disadvantage of most compromises: it was subject to attack from two directions. Holifield saw the program as an admission that the confident statements by private industry

204 about the promising commercial prospects for nuclear power were merely window-dressing. Cole, however, saw the Commission’s program as a subtle effort to use government contracts rather than licenses under the new act to develop nuclear power. Specifically, Cole questioned whether the Commission could provide assistance and funds for research on power demonstra-

tion reactors without violating the “no-subsidy” provision that the act applied to licensees. Nichols assured Cole that the Commission would be careful to see that no Commission money went into bricks and mortar for power demonstration plants and that funds for research would be limited to a predetermined amount.” Thus, the 202 hearings reinforced the Commission’s determination to hold government assistance to a minimum. Whether this kind of limitation was consistent with the aim of accelerating nuclear power development was another question. In fact, the general tenor of the hearings was that rapid development should take precedence over other considerations. Jerry Voorhis, executive director of the Cooperative League, once again criticized the 1954 act for encouraging monopoly in the electric power industry, but he too put nuclear power first. “In part the resolution of the present crisis in the world,” Voorhis declared, “depends on the relative success of the free world, as contrasted with the totalitarian world, in building a quality of life that is good for all its people and I believe atomic energy can play a major role in this great enterprise.” When Senator Pastore asked whether the United States was doing all it could to develop nuclear power, Cisler reminded him that the nation already had 40 percent of the world’s electrical generating capacity, which

was sufficient at the moment. But Pastore was unconvinced: “Are we not trying to win the hearts and minds of people in other parts of the world? . . . That is the great inspiration that was given to the world in the speech made by the President. Are we winning that race?” *’ At least, the Joint Committee was prepared to await the results of the Commission’s invitation. If attractive offers were received on April 1

NUCLEAR POWER FOR THE MARKETPLACE

and industry demonstrated a willingness to build reactors, perhaps no further government encouragement beyond the power demonstration program would be required. In the meantime, however, the Joint Committee was closely watching the Commission’s activities, especially the five-year program for building reactor experiments. In early March 1955 the committee, anticipating inspection trips to the laboratories, asked the Commission for a progress report on the five reactor experiments. A few weeks later, just before the deadline for the power demonstration proposals, the committee announced the appointment of a special panel to study the impact of the

peaceful uses of atomic energy. Such a panel would surely probe the Commission’s nuclear power efforts, and the appointment of Robert M. McKinney, editor of the Santa Fe New Mexican and friend of Senator Anderson’s, suggested the likelihood of political motivations in the study. ® Clearly the public debate on nuclear power policy was just beginning.

205 POWER DEMONSTRATIONS: DEFINING INDUSTRY'S ROLE

In spring 1955 the Commission pinned most of its hopes on the power demonstration reactors. After worrying for weeks that the response to the January invitation would be unimpressive, the Commission was mildly pleased to receive four proposals by the April 1 deadline. The Nuclear Power Group, which had bid unsuccessfully on the Shippingport project, offered to build a 180,000-kilowatt boiling-water reactor, to be completed near Chicago by 1960. A group of nine electric utilities headed by the Detroit Edison Company proposed to build a 100,000-kilowatt fast breeder, to be completed by 1958 in the Detroit area. The Yankee Atomic Electric Company of Boston, a consortium of thirteen utilities in New England, opted for a 100,000-kilowatt pressurized-water reactor, to be completed in western Massachusetts by late 1957. Finally, the Consumers Public Power

District of Columbus, Nebraska, proposed a 75,000-kilowatt sodiumgraphite reactor, to be completed in 1959. All four projects represented an extension into the demonstration phase of four of the five reactor types that the Commission was developing under the five-year program, and Strauss confidently expected in a few weeks a fifth offer, which never came, for a homogeneous reactor. In the weeks before the April | deadline, company

officials were frequently in contact with Strauss, other Commissioners, Nichols, and the staff. The utility groups probably knew enough about each

other’s interests to match the Commission’s program almost project for project. *

The almost casual way in which the Commission had approved the demonstration program in December 1954 and the very general selection criteria set forth in the invitation did not provide much guidance for evaluating the proposals. By the time the selection board and the director of re-

NUCLEAR POWER FOR THE MARKETPLACE

actor development reported back to the Commissioners in late June, Nichols

had left the agency; he was replaced by Brigadier General Kenneth E. Fields, the director of the division of military application, who had retired from the Army to accept the general manager’s position.*® An experienced

engineer with an outstanding military record, Fields had held several assignments in the atomic energy program since Manhattan Project days. Although he was as familiar as most Commission staff with the agency’s activities, he could not have been privy to all the rationale and motives that underlay Nichols’s advocacy of the power demonstration program. Almost at once the Commissioners got bogged down in the details of

the proposals, despite the fact that the selection board recommended accepting all four. A problem remained: no response strictly adhered to the kinds of assistance that the Commission offered to provide in the invitation.

The Consumers and Yankee plans went so far beyond the rather narrow 206 limits set forth in the invitation that they took on the nature of government projects in which industry would participate, rather than being industry efforts using limited government support.”!

Even the limits on support had proved too liberal in light of questions raised by Congressman Cole during the Section 202 hearings in February. Cole challenged the Commission’s authority to provide funds ostensibly for research and development if in fact such funds were to be used to offset construction and operating costs. This foray into the legislative history of the Atomic Energy Act was inconclusive, but it did make the Commissioners more sensitive to the fine points of administration than they had been in December. In some respects the Commission in July was making the kinds of policy decisions that should have been reached during the previous December, and some applicants under the demonstration program complained privately that the Commission was making up the rules after the contest had begun.” The extended discussions within the Commission during July and August 1955 revealed the kinds of dilemmas that any federal agency found in moving a new technology from government control into the marketplace. Even as late as summer 1955 the Commission still had no real confidence

that private industry was prepared to make sound decisions about the direction of nuclear power technology. Thus, evaluating the power demonstration proposals became not just a matter of matching them with the cri-

teria in the invitation but also of appraising the technical merits of the reactor systems presented. Commissioner Libby struggled for weeks to find some way to bend the criteria to permit the selection of the Consumers offer, which he considered the most attractive technically but the least responsive to the invitation’s terms. In the opposite direction, the Commission was not

enthusiastic about the Yankee proposal, even if it could be brought into line with the terms of the invitation, because it seemed to offer nothing new beyond the Shippingport plant; hence, it was scarcely worth the expendi-

NUCLEAR POWER FOR THE MARKETPLACE

ture of funds for research and development. Therefore, the Commission’s dilemma was twofold: trying to maintain technical balance in the program while attempting to move the technology into the economy, where presumably economic as well as technical factors would influence the course of development.” The Commission also faced what could be called the Shippingport dilemma. To the extent that the Commission agreed to furnish forms of assistance going beyond the terms of the invitation, the closer the power demonstration projects would come to being government enterprises of the Shippingport type. In fact, Congressman Cole’s position suggested that once government support passed a certain point, at least the nuclear portion of the plants would have to be government property; this would defeat the very purposes of the power demonstration reactor program by eliminating the possibility of private ownership and control. Thus, the smaller the per-

centage of government support, the farther away from the Shippingport 207 model the new projects would be. The trouble with pursuing this goal was that, as the projects became more independent of government support, the Commission would lose its hold on technical information developed in the course of design, construction, and operation of the demonstration plants. The prospect of losing access to the technical data produced in the projects worried the Commissioners. It seemed that while the technology was still in transition from government monopoly to marketplace conditions, some sort of middle course between government projects like Shippingport and the private construction of licensed facilities was in order. Beyond these considerations the Commission was motivated by the simple desire to see the demonstration program, once launched, become a success. In the simplistic terms that often prevailed on Capitol Hill, success would be determined by the number of power reactors actually resulting from the invitation. The Commission also feared that it would discourage industry proposals in the future if it rejected any of the first four. Yet the staff kept reminding the Commissioners that two constraints made it virtually impossible to accept the Consumers and Yankee proposals: the limitation on funding authority stressed by Congressman Cole and the potential danger of the Shippingport dilemma.™ These reservations were responsible for both delaying announcement of a Commission decision until August and phrasing it as a compromise that revealed the Commission’s two minds on the subject. The Commission found the proposals by the Nuclear Power Group and the Detroit Edison consortium acceptable for negotiation. The Yankee and Consumers offers as submitted were not acceptable, but the Commission authorized the staff to continue discussions that might result in revised submissions. The

product of four months of deliberation would hardly impress either the Administration or the Congress as a bold and aggressive response to insistent demands for nuclear power.

NUCLEAR POWER FOR THE MARKETPLACE

Since the beginning of the Eisenhower Administration the Commis-

sion had responded positively in its own way to the public demand for nuclear power. At the end of 1952 the new technology was still a military secret and a government monopoly. Even before the 1954 act became law, the Commission had taken steps to give private industry access to the technical data needed to evaluate the prospects for a nuclear power industry. In one short year since the passage of the new law, the Commission had launched an ambitious plan for private development and construction of nuclear power plants. In terms of its technical dimensions, the power demonstration reactor program was a bold, and perhaps even an unwarranted, effort to make nuclear power common in the marketplace. Privately the Commissioners still questioned whether the technology would support the grandiose public vision of the nuclear age, and they hoped that the resources and ingenuity

208 of private industry could find a shortcut to economical nuclear power. In summer 1955, however, the technology needed to achieve that goal did not exist. Nuclear power was not yet ready for the marketplace.

CHAPTER 8

ATOMS FOR PEACE: BUILDING AMERICAN POLICY

The scene was one Lewis Strauss would never forget. The President, his eyes glistening with emotion, sat almost meekly in his high-backed chair on the rostrum as delegates to the United Nations General Assembly filled the hall with applause. Throughout Eisenhower’s twenty-minute statement the 3,500 delegates had listened in silence as the President pledged that the United States would devote “its entire heart and mind to find the way by which the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life.”” Now that he had concluded, even the Soviet delegation joined the acclamation.' December 8, 1953, would be a memorable day in the history of the United Nations, but would it be more than a brief flash of idealism in a world drifting toward nuclear war?

WORLDWIDE REACTIONS

The President’s speech, broadcast worldwide by the Voice of America, received enthusiastic response from every continent. With the exception of communist governments and press, most officials and newspapers hailed Eisenhower's proposals as constructive, courageous, and a possible step toward improved East-West relationships. There was general agreement that Eisenhower had delivered one of the most significant speeches of the

postwar era, a statement in the “grand design” tradition of the Marshall Plan. But there was also widespread recognition that Eisenhower’s vision would become reality only if there were good faith on all sides, a requirement that some pessimists did not expect from the communists. Initial reactions from Pravda and other communist newspapers were almost predictable. Suspicious and hostile, communist editors charged that Eisenhower

ATOMS FOR PEACE

described the threat of atomic warfare without offering any suggestions for banning atomic weapons. The Soviet foreign ministry promised only to give the proposal “serious attention.” For the moment the world pushed aside

concerns about Korea, Trieste, and Berlin as millions reflected on the meaning of the President’s words.” The domestic response to Eisenhower's speech was highly favorable,

although not unboundedly so. On Capitol Hill, reporters found a marked difference between public statements and private comments, but no one doubted the sincerity of Congressman Cole when he pledged support for the President’s proposals “with all my heart” to secure Congressional approval of the plan. Senators from McCarthy of Wisconsin and Hickenlooper of lowa to Mike Mansfield of Montana described the speech as “a good suggestion,” “great,” and “daring.” Democrats and Republicans alike saw the speech as a master stroke of propaganda, but they divided on the feasibility

210 of establishing an international atomic energy agency. Carl Durham of North Carolina raised the specter of another foreign “giveaway” program. Freed from attribution, some Congressional leaders doubted that the “nationalist bloc” would vote to share the United States’ atomic energy technology with

an international body. Still other senators complained that Eisenhower should have consulted them before launching such a fundamental! departure in foreign policy.°

Like the miffed senators, no Commissioner except Strauss had known of the President’s intention until the day of the speech. After accidentally finding a reference to the speech in newspaper reports from the Bermuda conference, Murray had obtained a preliminary draft from the State Department. Murray was furious over yet another example of Strauss’s failure to keep the Commission informed of White House policy discussions

about atomic energy matters. He was even more appalled that Strauss would confide in Lord Cherwell while keeping his fellow Commissioners in

the dark. Murray was so angry that he even advocated cabling Strauss to request clearance of the President’s speech. The Commissioners did not take this step, for obvious reasons, but Eisenhower’s speech suggested, just as his unilateral action in the Oppenheimer case had, that they were outside the Administration’s inner circle on atomic energy affairs. After these two experiences both Zuckert and Smyth gave serious thought to leaving the Commission. Murray, whose term still had more than three years to run, girded himself for a relentless and often bitter struggle with Strauss and the Administration.‘ Although Strauss, as he did in the Dixon- Yates case, was careful to conceal any personal reservations about the Atoms-for-Peace proposal out of loyalty to the President, there was some scanty evidence that his enthusiasm was limited. In October, Strauss had worried about the risks to international security in collecting nuclear fuel in a United Nations pool. After the speech Strauss seemed to fear that the President’s remarks might create

ATOMS FOR PEACE

false expectations over the prospects for nuclear disarmament and perhaps some lowering of America’s defenses. Strauss thought the President should express his gratitude if the Russians unexpectedly accepted the President’s proposals, but even then Eisenhower should warn the American people that

it would be most unfortunate . . . if, despite the hope which a warsick world will reasonably draw from this gleam of light, we of the United States assume that the present danger is diminished or that our military posture should meanwhile be affected to the slightest degree.° Strauss said he did not oppose the President’s proposal; he merely wished to warn that Atoms for Peace would not soon take precedence over Atoms for War.

21] A NEW ROAD TO DISARMAMENT

The White House press conference was jammed with reporters on Decem-

ber 16, 1953. Even experienced hands on the White House press corps sensed unusual excitement because the President, reflecting his continued commitment to Candor, authorized for the first time direct quotation of all his remarks. Still tanned from the Bermuda sun and exhilarated from his United Nations triumph, Eisenhower met the press with full confidence and relaxed humor. He was not reticent in claiming the Atoms-for-Peace idea as his own. Granting that many people had contributed to the formulation of the final proposal, Eisenhower remarked that he had “originated the idea of a joint contribution to a central bank in an effort to get all people started on thinking in different terms about this whole business of atomic energy.”

Previous ideas, he explained, called for international inspection, which provided the Russians an automatic reason for rejecting them. The President hoped that his Atoms-for-Peace plan would sweep all previous proposals from the negotiating tables and thus “open up many lines of study.” ° The President was undoubtedly referring to the years of frustration that the United States had endured in its quest for international control of atomic energy, ever since Bernard M. Baruch made his dramatic proposal in a similar appearance before the General Assembly in June 1946. By the end of that year, American hopes for effective action in the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission were all but dead; in 1947 discussions tapered off and finally stopped.’ International control remained a dead issue in the United States until October 1950, when President Truman, in an address to the General Assembly, proposed a new disarmament commission to consider both conventional and nuclear weapons. The National Security Council directive (NSC 112 of July 6, 1951) gave evidence of the frustrations and disappointments encountered in five years of discussions with the So-

ATOMS FOR PEACE

viet Union. By the time the General Assembly finally established the new

disarmament commission in January 1952, there was little reason for optimism. ®

The United States delegation, lead by Benjamin V. Cohen, wanted to focus on the problems of disclosure and verification in 1952. The Americans probed the Soviet Union’s willingness to accept effective inspection, presuming that any verification plan agreeable to the Soviets would also be acceptable to the United States; furthermore, a Russian rejection would have an obvious propaganda advantage for the United States. For its part, the Soviet Union continued to advance proposals already rejected: a onethird reduction of armed forces by the Big Five—the Soviet Union, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and China; a prohibition of atomic weapons through a mere declaration that these weapons would be outlawed (the ban binding only after effective controls were established);

212 and the disclosure of official data on armed forces and armament.? To break the disarmament stalemate Secretary of State Acheson had appointed a panel of consultants, chaired by Oppenheimer, to take a fresk look at the full range of disarmament questions and their implications. The

panel’s report in January 1953, with its stress on Candor, had sparked Kisenhower’s interest in developing an entirely new approach to the nuclear

threat in international affairs. Other members of the National Security Council, notably Secretaries Wilson and Humphrey, were slow to follow the President’s lead. But after the Russians fired Joe 4 in August there was no

doubt that the Soviet Union had gained the propaganda edge over the United States, which had a shopworn, dead-end disarmament policy. ' Formulating a new policy for the Administration was a complex operation that had to proceed simultaneously at both the presidential and the agency levels. While Eisenhower, Dulles, Jackson, and Strauss made their tortuous way through Operation Candor to the United Nations address, Walter Bedell Smith, the Acting Secretary of State, coordinated the extensive staff work necessary in developing the details of the new policy. It was logical for Smith to call upon the Commission to evaluate the technical factors on which the new policy would rest, and it was just as reasonable for Commissioner Smyth to head the technical committee. !' Smyth had performed similar functions as far back as 1949, when the Truman Administration formulated its policy on thermonuclear weapons. Smyth’s committee found that the situation had changed radically since the days of severe uranium shortages that characterized the 1940s. Without hurting weapon production in the United States, sufficient uranium could now be supplied to satisfy the world’s need for research and nuclear power, even if all the existing mines and production plants were shut down for ten or twenty years. On the debit side, with so much uranium available, there was no longer any way of assuring that all fissionable material had

ATOMS FOR PEACE

been declared, short of a system of continuous and unimpeded inspection in all countries. !” Although Smyth’s (and the Commission’s) role in the policy process

may have seemed clear and logical to the State Department and the National Security Council, Strauss’s special relationship to the President and the council did arouse distrust in his fellow Commissioners. Murray became so upset that he attempted to interject the Commission into the decision process in October 1953, by proposing that the United States release information about the location of its uranium mines and production plants and even admit United Nations observers to the Castle test series in the spring of 1954 as a way of embarrassing the Soviet Union.

By October 15 tensions within the Commission had risen so high that in Strauss’s absence his colleagues had adopted a formal resolution stating that the agency “as a Commission” had a responsibility to participate in formulating United States policy in international control. Growing 213 more impatient and frustrated, Smyth decided to drop all work on the technical committee because Strauss and Dulles were making the policy decisions. Only a personal appeal from Strauss on October 18 convinced Smyth to continue as head of the technical committee, although he was still seriously considering resigning from the Commission. Smyth might not have

been so discouraged had he known that Strauss had actually forwarded his recommendations to the President through C. D. Jackson, but Strauss’s sense of loyalty to Eisenhower would not permit him to reveal even this confidence. '*

INTERPRETING THE EISENHOWER PROPOSAL

Once the President decided, in October 1953, to address the United Nations, Eisenhower’s conception of the Atoms-for-Peace plan became an important factor in any consideration of American disarmament policy. The United Nations speech was the product of the President and a few close

advisers; it did not reflect the concerns and interests of the professional bureaucracy in Washington or of allied governments abroad. Enunciated by the President almost as a personal hope, the speech could not set forth specific proposals. American officials and foreign governments were all un-

certain about the precise intentions of the President’s noble sentiments. The glowing generalities were subject to many interpretations, and these in turn would ultimately determine the proposal’s fate. Among the first to face the problem of interpretation were the British, who had an opportunity to review the draft at the Bermuda conference just before Eisenhower went to New York. Churchill’s first goal at Bermuda was to try to reestablish the full measure of cooperation on nuclear weapon

ATOMS FOR PEACE

development that the two nations had created in the early years of World War II. As diplomatically as possible, Eisenhower explained the inhibitions imposed by the 1946 Atomic Energy Act and pledged to do what he could to secure a number of amendments at the next session of Congress; however, Churchill was impatient with such vague reassurances. If the United States wanted the United Kingdom to be a full military partner, the British would need information on the weight, dimensions, and ballistics of American weapons adapted for the design of British planes. Cherwell assured the Americans that the British did not intend to develop a hydrogen bomb, but until the United Kingdom could build its own stockpile of atomic weapons, the Royal Air Force would have to rely upon the United States for atomic bombs. '*

Eisenhower, perhaps embarrassed that he could not reply to Chur-

chill’s requests directly, launched a disquisition on atomic weaponry, 214 which continued the following evening at dinner. To the discomfiture of his British hosts, Eisenhower concluded that “the atomic bomb has to be treated just as another weapon in the arsenal.” Should hostilities resume in Korea, for example, there was a distinct possibility that the United States

would use nuclear weapons against communist air bases, supplies, and troop concentrations. Churchill protested that such an action might touch off World War IIT and the consequent bombing of London with “the destruc-

tion of all we hold dear, ourselves, our families and our treasures.” In a state approaching desperation, Churchill could not immediately comment on the draft of the Atoms-for-Peace speech. Eventually he suggested two changes to tone down overly belligerent passages. Cherwell accepted the

idea of an atomic bank but predicted that the Russians would obstruct negotiations of any proposal. !®

After Stalin’s death in March 1953 and the end of the Korean War in July, Americans held a faint hope for some change in the Soviet Union’s foreign policy toward the United States. Although Malenkov, speaking before the Supreme Soviet in August, did not stint on any usual criticism aimed at the United States, Ambassador Charles E. Bohlen had noted a greater frankness and realism than ever before in Russian discussions of internal affairs. C. D. Jackson, for one, was determined to remain as optimistic as possible “that the Soviet leaders will recognize the President’s proposal as a serious and feasible first step toward atomic peace.” Even the initial Russian reaction, Jackson added, need not be regarded as the Soviet government’s considered decision. © Jackson’s caution was well advised. On December 21, 1953, Soviet

Foreign Minister Vyacheslav M. Molotov informed Dulles that the Soviet government was prepared to discuss Eisenhower's plan, assuming that the United States would also agree to entertain Soviet proposals for the total ban of nuclear weapons. Although the Soviet note did not contain an unqualified endorsement of Eisenhower’s speech and reiterated some old dis-

ATOMS FOR PEACE

armament slogans, Jean Allary of the Agence France Presse observed that if the Soviets’ demand for a nuclear ban was not a preliminary condition but a goal to be worked for, then agreement was possible. Other foreign observers noted that the lack of vituperation in the Russian reply gave hope that the Soviet Union really desired to negotiate. '’ Within the American government interpretations of the President’s intentions also differed, much to Jackson’s annoyance. The State Department virtually accepted the Soviet construction that would have initiated negotiations on “atomic disarmament” without reference to general disarmament, including conventional weapons. The Department of Defense, on the other hand, argued that the State Department’s position was not only counter to long standing United States policy, as confirmed by the National Security Council, but would also be tantamount to defense suicide. Atomic disarmament alone would reduce the United States to a position inferior to

the Russians in conventional weapons. The dispute reflected both the hope 215 of some State Department officials who argued that Eisenhower had successfully broken the disarmament stalemate and the fear of those in the Defense Department who worried that Atoms for Peace might be used to clip the wings of the Strategic Air Command.'* Strauss pointed out that the purpose behind the atomic bank proposal had been to ease international tensions by reducing existing nuclear stockpiles. Nevertheless, if the Russians rejected the idea, the United States would still have won a substantial psychological victory. The President wanted to sidestep the disarmament issue, not confront it, Strauss argued. !” Ultimately, only Eisenhower himself could settle the fundamental questions concerning his intentions. Meeting with Dulles, Strauss, Jackson, and Deputy Secretary of Defense Roger Kyes, on January 16, 1954, the President stated his central point as simply and forcefully as possible: the distinction between total and atomic disarmament was largely academic because neither could be accomplished without the most rigid and comprehensive system of inspection. Surprisingly, Eisenhower did not oppose outlawing the atomic bomb without an agreement on conventional weapons and

armies. The bomb, he ruefully observed, had really frightened America because it was the first weapon that could cripple American industry, the winning factor in all major conflicts since the Civil War. If atomic and hydrogen weapons were outlawed, the Russians would be left with a vastly superior conventional force, but American industrial capacity could readily cope with any military assault on the North American continent. No disarmament agreement with the Russians, however, could be effective in the current international climate, the President staunchly argued, without foolproof inspection safeguards.” Dulles agreed, but he reminded Eisenhower that the Russians would press for nuclear disarmament no matter what the United States did. Con-

sequently, with the President’s concurrence, Dulles recommended two

ATOMS FOR PEACE

courses of action. First, the United States would “listen” to any proposal the Soviet Union cared to submit on control or abolition of nuclear weapons, but Dulles would not be drawn into negotiations on this subject. Second, the United States would press forward on discussions of peaceful uses entirely separate from any negotiations on weapons. To implement the latter, a joint working group from the Commission, State, and Defense had been

appointed to develop issues that would serve as the basis for discussions and to explore whether the discussions should proceed privately with individual governments or be pursued through an international organization such as the United Nations.?! As part of the Administration’s effort, Strauss asked Smyth and his committee to draft a charter for the international organization suggested in Eisenhower's speech. Smyth, still smarting from the sting of the “Bermuda

crisis” while becoming increasingly worried by the Oppenheimer affair, 216 reluctantly agreed to accept the assignment with the proviso that the Commission support his understanding of the President’s speech. Because there were many interpretations of Atoms for Peace, Smyth asked the Commission to sponsor the most radical possibility—namely, that Eisenhower intended to look beyond peaceful uses to envision the eventual reduction of atomic stockpiles in the United States and the Soviet Union. After extensive discussion Smyth received his endorsement.” Once disentangled from disarmament questions, Atoms for Peace faced three other policy questions, none of them insurmountable from the American perspective. The first concerned the amount of fissionable mate-

rial each country would be expected to contribute to an international agency. Initially, Strauss had feared theft of the material unless it were stored in a highly dilute solution at a remote location. In fact, the question was whether the United States could induce the Russians to contribute anything at all to the bank. Smyth, who also served as chairman of the joint working group, asserted that the United States contribution should be large enough to launch the program but not so great as to make it impossible for the Soviets to participate, assuming they responded in good faith. It would be best, Smyth thought, to begin with small contributions of normal and partially enriched uranium, which could be gradually increased over time to the point where contributions actually began to reduce weapon stockpiles. Although all contributions ought to be made on a one-to-one ratio by the United States and Russia, the initial United States contribution might

acceptably be two or three times that of the Soviet Union.” | There was also the question of how much information the Commission would provide the international agency. Everyone agreed that declas-

sified information could be made available as a matter of routine; the agency would thus act as an international library and clearinghouse for nuclear information. It was also foreseen that as soon as the international agency moved into nuclear power, almost all reactor technology would have

ATOMS FOR PEACE

to be declassified. The most sensitive information would involve advanced military propulsion reactors, such as those designed for submarines, ships,

and airplanes. But even in this area, Robert LeBaron from the Defense Department observed that the technology could be declassified once the military no longer needed to keep it secret.”* Finally, the working group debated whether it would be permissible for members of the international agency to exchange fissionable material or information outside the organization’s jurisdiction. The question was of spe-

cial interest to the United States, which had the option of negotiating directly with friendly nations. The working group saw that Congress would never allow the United States to work exclusively through a United Nations

agency. On the other hand, the members believed that certain countries, such as India, might prefer to obtain reactors through a neutral agency rather than directly from either the United States or the Soviet Union. Con-

sequently, the group decided that the agency should not have a monopoly 217 on international negotiations but that bilateral arrangements between countries would also be acceptable. Thus, the agency would be a clearinghouse, for both nuclear materials and technical information, without authority to plan, finance, or conduct projects of its own. Membership in the agency would be open to all nations, regardless of their United Nations affiliation, and even nonmember nations that accepted its conditions would be eligible for its services.”° Thus did the joint working group set forth the outlines of a charter for the international agency. Now it was the State Department’s responsibility to open the way for international discussions.

APPROACHING THE RUSSIANS

On board the Santa /sabel cruising in the Caribbean, David Lilienthal also reflected on the Atoms-for-Peace idea. Initially, the former chairman of the Commission had been enthusiastic about Eisenhower’s speech and had urged the United States to proceed immediately with the proposal without waiting for Soviet participation. Before leaving New York, however, Lilienthal had been told by a confidant, who had declined to lead the American team negotiating with the Russians, that “there was no substance in the proposal itself.” Lilienthal concluded that the President’s performance had been nothing but a propaganda ploy, a shocking deception, not only for the Russians but for the American people as well.”° Perhaps Lilienthal’s judgment would not have been so harsh had he known of the Administration’s determination to push ahead with Atoms for Peace, with or without cooperation from the Soviet Union. But neither the State Department nor anyone else was certain of how to proceed. Dulles favored private negotiations through normal diplomatic channels apart from

ATOMS FOR PEACE

the United Nations disarmament commission. In fact, he thought there was considerable logic to limiting initial discussions to the three countries that actually had nuclear weapons—the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union. Although there was no way to avoid talking about disarmament in bilateral discussions with the Russians, Dulles thought it futile to work through a United Nations committee that could neither limit its membership nor keep its discussions pertinent. ?’ Strauss and Secretary of Defense Wilson agreed that bilateral negotiations with the Russians, and possibly with the British, would be best. Eisenhower's correspondence with Churchill, Strauss’s conversations with Cherwell, and Dulles’s meetings with Sir Roger Makins, the British ambas-

sador, had already advanced British participation to the point where it would be impractical to exclude them.”® There was even the risk, Dulles observed, that Churchill might undertake negotiations on his own initiative

218 if left out of the discussion. Actually the Americans had few objections to including the British; however, the possibility of French involvement did concern them.

The American architects of the international agency who met on January 6, 1954, were unanimous that the French should be excluded as long as possible, largely for reasons of security. Dulles was not overly worried about alienating the French or driving them toward the Soviet Union. He underscored his preference by noting that Churchill had a similar attitude toward the French and would also resist including them in atomic discussions. Assistant Secretary Livingston T. Merchant pointed out that it would be difficult to exclude the French, particularly if the Canadians and Belgians were eventually brought into the discussions. Strauss seemed to concur with Merchant, for, although he hated to think of French participation, he remarked that most likely the Belgians, and therefore the French, would have to be included within a year. Since Bermuda, he reported, the Belgians’ noses had been “out of joint,” and with the uranium ore purchase agreements about to expire it might even be prudent to consider Brussels as the headquarters for the proposed international agency. For the present, the group decided to exclude the French from American planning for the international agency. ”?

The following day Dulles fully explained the American strategy to Ambassador Makins and stressed that the United States intended to conduct preliminary talks with the Soviet Union to determine when, where, and with whom the Russians wanted to meet. Dulles promised to keep Makins fully informed of developments; but alluding to the sensitive problem of excluding the French, he asked the British not to participate formally in the discussions until after the four-power conference scheduled for Berlin late in January. Makins assured Dulles that the British, aware of the French problem, had no intention of inserting themselves into the preliminary talks with the Russians. Indeed, British Foreign Minister Anthony

ATOMS FOR PEACE

Eden was anxious that atomic discussions not get mixed up with the Berlin conference itself. Makins warned, however, that once the negotiations became multilateral, it would be difficult to proceed without Canada and the Union of South Africa, let alone France and Belgium.*°

With assurance of British support, Dulles on January 11, 1954, presented Soviet Ambassador Georgi N. Zaroubin the United States’ suggestion for private discussions of atomic energy, including the proposed international agency. In addition to urging early bilateral discussions of Eisenhower's plan, the United States expressed its willingness to consider any proposal that the Soviet Union wished to make concerning nuclear weapons, with the proviso that the first efforts would necessarily be modest in order to build “trust and confidence.” The following week the Soviet Union accepted the proposal for confidential exchanges with the understanding that, at an appropriate stage, the negotiations would include Communist China. Until such time, the Soviet Union conditioned its acceptance 219 of the American overture by insisting on the principle of rotation, under which one meeting would be devoted to the international agency and the next to the Soviet proposal for a ban on nuclear weapons. The Berlin conference in January and February 1954 had been convened by the Big Four to discuss Korea, Indochina, Germany, Austria, and other outstanding problems; but it also provided Dulles and Molotov an opportunity for further atomic energy discussions. Meeting after the plenary session on January 30, Dulles informed Molotov that the United States was preparing a memorandum that would set forth the United States’ proposals for establishing an international atomic energy agency. Although the United

States had consulted with certain allies, Dulles said he did not want to include other countries at this stage. Molotov was prepared to receive the American memorandum and offered a draft Soviet declaration also designed to counter the nuclear threat. Predictably the Russians pursued disarmament by advocating that the Big Five, including Communist China, join in an unconditional renunciation of using nuclear weapons. Molotov assumed that the five countries would also participate in subsequent atomic energy negotiations. Dulles could offer no comment, but he did not object to informing Eden and French Foreign Minister Georges Bidault of the Soviet document, provided American-Soviet talks remained private. Prudently, Dulles had already briefed Bidault on American intentions and had received his polite acquiescence in the American proposal.*?

THE ATOMS-FOR-PEACE PROPOSAL

While Dulles conducted his leisurely discussions with the Russians, Smyth’s committee continued drafting an outline of the proposal. On at least one occasion prior to the Berlin conference Strauss had briefed the

ATOMS FOR PEACE

Commissioners on the exchanges between Dulles and the Russians; but, as Smyth had noted, the Commission had never been assigned an official role in preparing or approving the draft. Consequently, except for those informal discussions, the Commission had no official voice in completing the memorandum sent to the State Department on February 12, 1954.*°

Smyth’s outline, more a checklist than a plan, highlighted the atomic bank by defining broad functions for the international agency: receiving, storing, and allocating nuclear materials and fostering technical information services. The agency’s administrative machinery, its financing,

and its relationship to the United Nations were left purposely vague to avoid prematurely rigid assumptions about its functions. As promised, the United States submitted the outline to the British, Canadians, and French for comment and to the Belgians, South Africans, and Australians for information. **

220 The reactions from the British and Canadian governments were generally favorable, while the French offered no substantive comments. The United States’ atomic partners had so little part in the plan that it was easy to accommodate their suggestions by changing only a few sentences. When the British wondered whether the proposed agency had been tied too closely to the United Nations, the Americans changed the provision requiring the agency to report to the Security Council, where its work would be subject

to veto. The Canadians, however, openly expressed resentment at not having been consulted more extensively. Sensitive to the Canadians’ objections, R. Gordon Arneson, in charge of the atomic energy section of the State Department, expressed the United States’ hope for consultation among the three governments as the negotiations proceeded.*° Although not overly optimistic about the possibilities of success with the Russians, American Kremlinologists had been searching for evidence of a softening in Soviet foreign policy. C. D. Jackson noted that the Russians had sent their first team to Berlin—Molotov, Gromyko, Malik, and Zaroubin. But apart from unusual personal friendliness, especially from Molotov, Jackson found no visible evidence of a new direction in Soviet foreign policy. More astutely, Jacob D. Beam of the policy planning staff and later ambassador to the Soviet Union observed that the Kremlin had engaged in an “Operation Candor” of its own since Eisenhower’s United Nations speech. Malenkov’s electrifying address of March 14, 1954, let the facts about the Soviet nuclear arsenal and its destructive power speak for themselves without resort to threat or bombast. Beam identified a subtle, but important, shift in Soviet rhetoric on international atomic problems made necessary by the latest developments in that field. Before the Russians had built their own nuclear weapons, they stood for abolition of all

nuclear armaments. As they approached technical parity, the Russians stressed prohibition on use, not abolition, showing they had no more inten-

ATOMS FOR PEACE

tion than the United States of totally scrapping such weapons. And for the first time the Kremlin admitted Russia’s vulnerability in a nuclear war.*° The United States presented its plan for the international agency to Soviet Ambassador Zaroubin on March 19, 1954, but one month later in Geneva the Russians smashed any hope for an immediate acceptance. In his note to Dulles, Molotov virtually ignored the American outline. Purposely assuming that Eisenhower’s atomic bank plan was primarily a disarmament scheme, the Soviets criticized the very point that Smyth had used to promote the idea—that the small amounts of nuclear materials allocated to the international agency would not in any significant way diminish the stock available for nuclear weapons. Instead, the American plan only created the illusion of a “peaceful atom” because growing electrical generation using nuclear reactors would actually increase the amount of nuclear material available for weapons. *’

From a propaganda point of view, the Russian note was severe and 221 perhaps damaging. In substance, the Russians charged that Eisenhower had spoken grandiosely before the United Nations, that he had frightened the world with the prospect of a nuclear holocaust while promising new solutions to the Cold War. Sadly, the Soviets implied, the vaunted new approach turned out to be a piddling American proposal for an insignificant international pool, which, if anything, would only accelerate the arms race. Furthermore, the Russians charged, the Americans privately evaded the problem of the “inadmissibility” of atomic weapons and thus failed to meet the President’s own purpose—eliminating the threat of atomic war. The Kremlin ardently professed its support for the “peaceful atom,” but the

Russians claimed that the American proposals were so one-sided that they could only be considered as a supplement to a more fundamental agreement. In other words, Molotov would not negotiate the charter for the

international agency until the United States had signed a disarmament agreement.*®

Unfortunately, according to one State Department analyst, there seemed to be some basis for the Russian claim that the modest proposal submitted by the United States hardly met the expectations aroused by the President’s eloquent speech. While striving to preserve the secrecy of the talks, the United States could offer only one response: it was necessary to take small steps showing good faith so that greater accomplishments could follow. Accordingly, on May 1 at Geneva, Dulles conferred informally with Molotov on the proposal. He stressed that the agency would not be able to solve the disarmament problems worrying the Russians. Dulles bluntly told Molotov that a greater degree of confidence had to exist between the countries before significant progress would be made on disarmament. In a curious reversal of roles, Dulles argued that the President’s speech contained only a modest proposal for improving East-West relations. Molotov, on the

ATOMS FOR PEACE

other hand, insisted that the United States plan was not so innocuous as the Americans assumed because power reactors could also produce materials that might be used to fabricate atomic bombs. The deficiency in the American plan, Molotov asserted, was neither political nor ideological but scientific—a fact Dulles could confirm by consulting directly with American scientists. Nonplussed by Molotov’s technical argument and clearly disadvantaged when discussing scientific matters, Dulles weakly promised to look into the matter fully, although he was skeptical about his ability to understand Molotov’s point. Ultimately, the State Department answered Molotov by vaguely asserting that methods could be devised to prevent the diversion

of nuclear materials from power reactors. Dulles did not assume that the Russians had rejected the international pool, but he informed Molotov that, unless the United States received a positive answer, the United States 222 would consult other interested nations. To take it or leave it was the Soviet dilemma, and throughout the summer of 1954 no one in the Western world was certain of the Soviet Union’s final decision.*?

A MORATORIUM ON TESTING

Concurrent with planning the international agency in winter and spring 1954, the Eisenhower Administration, at the prompting of Commissioner Murray, briefly explored the possibilities of adopting a moratorium on nuclear testing. Murray accepted Jacob Beam’s view that the Russians had shifted from advocating abolition of nuclear weapons to proposing prohibition of their use. He believed that the Soviet Union had created the oppor-

tunity for another initiative by the United States, one that would further Eisenhower's atomic energy aims. Murray considered the atomic arms race unique because large-scale testing, which was necessary for weapon development but which could not be kept secret, only intensified world tensions and stimulated successive rounds in the race. Yet this very combination of circumstances offered the possibility of stopping the headlong rush toward world disaster. A moratorium on large-scale testing, in Murray’s opinion, would not only sharply curtail weapon development to the point where it might even be halted, but it would also remove the need for inspections or interference with national sovereignty. Because the United States was well ahead of the Russians in thermonuclear technology, a moratorium on testing would not upset American superiority in nuclear weapons. If the Soviet Union rejected the idea, however, Murray thought the President would win another stunning propaganda victory.” It was ironic that the suggestion to link a test moratorium with the Atoms-for-Peace program should come from within the Commission on the

eve of the Castle test series in February 1954. Furthermore, despite

ATOMS FOR PEACE

Strauss’s encouragement, it was almost certain that Murray’s proposal would have received little attention from the Administration had not Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of India, supported privately by the British, also advocated a moratorium on testing hydrogen weapons. Nehru’s pleas, made in April after the Castle-Bravo shot, indicated that the full impact of Eisenhower’s warning about the consequences of thermonuclear warfare could only be understood in the shadow of the awesome Bikini explosion.*! Eisenhower had alluded to the destructive power of thermonuclear weapons in his United Nations speech; but his references to tons of TNT and “explosives equivalents,” while frightening, did not convey the picture of a world in ruins. Two months later in Chicago, Congressman Cole completed the sketch that the President had outlined before the General Assembly. After Bravo every metaphor was obsolete. Cole had mentioned nothing about Bravo in his talk, but even the details of the comparatively primitive Mike shot of November 1952 had been sufficient to panic Winston 223 Churchill, who apparently had little comprehension of the power of thermonuclear weapons before he went to Bermuda. Perhaps for the first time Churchill was aware that England was defenseless against a nuclear attack. Not only was he concerned that a single bomb could destroy London, but he also realized that a hydrogen bomb dropped in the sea to the windward side of Great Britain could poison the entire country with radioactive fall-

out. The Bravo shot brought Churchill under intense pressure from the Labour opposition for details of the test and launched a protest against further experimentation. Distraught at being personally attacked for Britain’s lack of information concerning American policy, Churchill informed Eisenhower that he intended to publish the text of the 1943 Quebec Agreement in order to demonstrate that the leaders of the Labour government after the war, not the Conservatives, had failed to keep abreast of United States developments.” In response to the mounting anxiety over American tests, from both inside and outside the government, Dulles obtained Eisenhower's approval in April 1954 to explore the possibility of ceasing all thermonuclear testing. The President appointed Dulles, Strauss, and Admiral Arthur W. Radford,

chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to study the matter. Thereafter, in London, Dulles was able to reassure Eden that the United States was sensitive to world opinion about the Bikini tests and that the President had requested technical advice on the subject. Once again the Commission was left officially in the dark about Strauss’s special assignment from the President. On May 7, 1954, after the National Security Council had received a report from the Joint Chiefs of Staff opposing any agreement on a test moratorium, Strauss informed his

fellow Commissioners that the President had reconstituted the special committee on atomic energy for the purpose of considering the possible suspension of thermonuclear weapon testing. Again Strauss’s colleagues

ATOMS FOR PEACE

protested. Murray especially complained that Strauss had authorized an official agency position on Nehru’s proposal without consulting the Commissioners. *°

For Strauss, harried now by the Oppenheimer case and DixonYates, the dispute with Murray was minor but irritating. As before, Strauss moved somewhat reluctantly under the President’s direct orders, while attempting to keep the Commission informed without compromising the confidence of either the President or the National Security Council. Strauss informed his colleagues on May 21 that the special committee was meeting, but he did not relate the substance of the discussions during which he and Robert B. Anderson, the Acting Secretary of Defense, had strongly opposed the moratorium to the dismay of Robert R. Bowie of the State Department’s policy planning staff.“ The struggle for a test moratorium, however, was all shadowboxing

224 in early summer 1954. The moratorium stood no chance at all as long as the United States dominated the thermonuclear club. Initially Dulles had favored the idea as a means of improving United States relations with the British, a position that became unnecessary when Churchill personally informed Eisenhower of Britain’s decision to proceed with thermonuclear development, contrary to what Cherwell had told the Americans at Bermuda. With the British vying for the thermonuclear weapon along with the Russians, the Americans were not about to sacrifice any real or imagined advantage. More sensitive to scientific questions after his embarrassment by Molotov in Geneva, Dulles asked for a thorough technical evaluation of the

moratorium idea in comparison with its political and propaganda advantages. On the technical level, it was necessary to solicit the views of the Commission directly.” To answer Dulles’s questions, the Commission invited representatives of its two weapon laboratories, Edward Teller and Norris E. Bradbury,

to comment on the feasibility of suspending United States tests. In the main, the scientists’ technical advice was negative and with Oppenheimer’s fate hanging in the balance, they refrained from offering political observations. If there were a total ban on tests, they noted, it would still be possible for the Russians to conceal low-yield tests. Furthermore, even if the moratorilum were adequately policed, any ban that extended beyond 1957 would seriously impair weapon development in the United States.” Not wishing to appear totally negative, Strauss had the concurrence of all the Commissioners, except Murray, in stating that a moratorium on large-weapon testing would be to America’s advantage, an important step

toward general disarmament if arranged by a dependable agreement; but such an agreement with the Russians was in Strauss’s opinion “illusory.” Furthermore, should the Administration decide that an unenforceable agreement with the Russians was desirable for propaganda purposes, Strauss warned that it might not be possible to resume testing thereafter.

ATOMS FOR PEACE

The United States could then lose more international goodwill than could be gained by sponsoring the moratorium in the first place. Without exploring the matter further, the National Security Council accepted Dulles’s

and Strauss’s recommendations and shelved the moratorium idea on June 24, 1954.*

ATOMS FOR PEACE: WITH OR WITHOUT THE RUSSIANS

For the moment the path toward Atoms for Peace was obscured. With the moratorium and disarmament blocked, the international agency still unchartered, the Russians uncooperative, the British near panic, Oppenheimer cashiered, Dixon- Yates festering, and the atomic energy bill stuck fast in the Senate, the Administration was understandably uncertain about its

next step. An obvious alternative was to plunge ahead with a modified 225 international agency, with or without Russian partnership. The advantages of this course of action were clear enough. It would dramatize America’s intention to promote internationally the constructive uses of atomic energy, even though Cold War tensions might not be lessened. To some extent, the step would counteract the adverse publicity following the Lucky Dragon fallout incident and counterbalance the communists’ pleas for outlawing the use of nuclear weapons. Most important, the move would put the Russians in a bad light and tend to counteract centrifugal forces in the Western alliance. It would also be politically popular in the United States.

On the negative side officials worried about the consequences of Russian absence from an international agency. A Soviet boycott would frustrate Kisenhower’s two main aims in proposing an atomic pool: to lessen Cold War tensions and to siphon off weapon-grade material from existing

nuclear stockpiles. In addition to the possibility that the Cold War might even be intensified, there was fear that Soviet espionage would be aided to the extent that the United States provided classified or formerly classified information to the international agency. By proceeding without the Russians, the United States would lose the propaganda advantage of being able to state that Soviet rejections of the plan had scuttled Eisenhower’s dream. At the same time, the Russians would be left with the option of joining the agency whenever it suited their interests. Finally, absent Russian participation, the State Department thought it advisable for the United States to negotiate nuclear power agreements directly with various countries, especially with those rich in uranium and thorium deposits, in return for their allegiance and material support.* Characteristically, Eisenhower fretted over the indecision of his advisers. When Strauss appeared before the Joint Committee to testify on the atomic energy bill, the President directed Strauss to make it “abundantly clear” that the United States had no intention of giving up its Atoms-for-

ATOMS FOR PEACE

Peace plan just because the Soviet Union had rejected it. By June 4, 1954, Eisenhower had decided to proceed without the Russians, if necessary. He ordered Dulles, Strauss, and Wilson to explore means of sharing atomic energy information through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and other channels in addition to intensifying United States planning efforts on the international bank. At his news conference on July 7, the President unambiguously served notice that he was “not going to let it die, if I can possibly help it.” Later, when the Senate filibuster against the atomic energy bill also seemed to threaten Atoms for Peace, Eisenhower even considered introducing a special bill that would at least save the international plan. Although that was ultimately unnecessary, the President reiterated his determination to press forward with or without the Russians when he signed the Atomic Energy Act into law on August 30.” Dulles had quickly endorsed the President’s decision to proceed,

226 although he knew this move would trouble the British, who were not enthusiastic about an atomic pool without Soviet contributions. Apparently the British feared getting caught shorthanded in an international agency that would dilute American interest in bilateral agreements and weaken Commonwealth obligations between the United Kingdom and uranium-rich South Africa and Australia. Eden expressed these concerns during his June

meetings with Eisenhower in Washington, only to receive an eloquent presidential soliloquy on the virtues of the peaceful atom coupled with Eisenhower’s vague assurances of American cooperation “within the limits of the law.” ° Although Strauss also supported the presidential directive, he was not anxious to push plans for the international agency while the fight over the atomic energy bill continued in Congress. On July 12, Strauss, fearing the United States had been losing ground to Soviet delaying tactics, congratulated Eisenhower for his decision to move ahead with the Atoms-forPeace plan; yet, on the same day, the chairman ordered Snapp to hold up everything on the international agency until after the atomic energy bill had passed. Strauss’s motives were unclear, and his refusal to act apparently

took the State Department by surprise. Perhaps Strauss wanted to mark time while waiting for passage of the act, with its restrictive international sections that forbade United States participation in a multilateral atomic pool. Certainly he was nervous about the membership in such an organization. He favored limiting membership in the international agency to countries recognized by the United States, a restriction that excluded Communist China. Nevertheless, Strauss continued to promote Eisenhower's

program by including glowing references to it in his address before the Veterans of Foreign Wars on August 5.°! Most questions concerning the direction of the Atoms-for-Peace plan and the future of the nuclear material pool were resolved by the National Security Council on August 13, 1954. Assuming that the Russians would

ATOMS FOR PEACE

not participate in the international agency and that the atomic energy bill would become law, the council adopted a policy consistent with the proposed law. Dulles hoped to keep the relationship between the international agency and the United Nations as tenuous as possible in order to avoid criticism of the United Nations in Congress; he estimated that it would take at least two years to negotiate a multilateral agreement that would receive Senate ratification. In the interim, the United States was to maintain its leadership in the peaceful uses of atomic energy by sponsoring international scientific conferences, offering assistance in construction of smallscale research reactors, and providing training programs and technical information.” Even more progress could be made through bilateral negotiations, which would salvage something of the spirit of the President’s plan for an international atomic energy bank. In keeping with the agreements for co-

operation, Section (123) of the 1954 act, the National Security Council 227 stipulated in NSC 5431/1 that all bilateral agreements for sharing nuclear material would have to meet three requirements. First, no agreement could be inimical to the United States’ security, and, where possible, any agreement should promote the United States’ own atomic energy interests. In this respect, as Strauss had been recommending since December, the first bilateral agreement might be made with Belgium, which still controlled the uranium-rich Belgian Congo. Second, no agreement could be negotiated that either required weapon-grade materials or significantly diverted fissionable materials or trained personnel from nuclear weapon development in the United States. In every case where the United States provided nuclear materials for research or power reactors, whether by gift, lease, or sale, the Atomic Energy Commission would require the return of all spent fuel and nuclear by-products for reprocessing in the United States. Finally, the council wanted to insure that the United States gained the “maximum psychological and educational advantage” from its endeavors in this field. Dulles was particularly bothered about this point because he thought the

directive of the National Security Council fell short of the President’s United Nations proposal. Strauss and Robert Cutler allayed Dulles’s concerns, however, by arguing that the proposed program would be well received, especially if it were announced by the President in conjunction with ground-breaking ceremonies for the nation’s first commercial power reactor at Shippingport, Pennsylvania. *° Speaking from Denver via radio and television on Labor Day 1954,

Eisenhower ended the Administration’s long silence about its Atoms-forPeace plan. Ignoring the Russians except to note that American initiatives had been “cynically blocked in the councils of the world,” the President briefly outlined the United States’ determination to work for an international agency while negotiating bilateral agreements. This time, however, no one was caught unprepared by the President’s speech, which was made all the

ATOMS FOR PEACE

more dramatic when he used an “atomic wand” in Denver to set a bulldozer in motion at the Shippingport site. Not only was the Commission consulted

closely about the contents of the speech, but Strauss had explained the matter carefully to Cole for the information of the Joint Committee. The State Department, in turn, briefed Canada, the United Kingdom, South Africa, France, Portugal, Belgium, and Australia. Subsequently, Eisenhower ordered Dulles and Strauss to implement NSC 5431/1, with the Atomic Energy Commission assigned leadership in formulating a definitive

program of action while the State Department continued its diplomatic exploration.“

THE RUSSIAN BOMBSHELL

228 Dulles was looking forward to the ninth session of the United Nations General Assembly in September 1954 as an occasion for announcing the steps the United States intended to take in giving life to the President’s proposals. Dulles wished to address the General Assembly early in the session when he planned to propose establishing the international agency and calling an international scientific conference on the peaceful uses of atomic

energy. In an effort to draw attention to the speech, Dulles planned to conclude with a dramatic and unexpected announcement that the United States would also extend invitations “to a substantial number of medical and surgical experts from abroad” to work in American cancer hospitals using atomic energy techniques. Leaving to Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge the task of explaining why the United States had dropped the nuclear material pool from its proposal, Dulles would conclude with the pious assurance that the United States intended to exclude “no nation from participation in this great venture,” including the Russians.*° On September 22, the day before Dulles was to deliver his address, the Soviet government ended five months of silence on Atoms for Peace by declaring its willingness to continue discussions with the United States. Although the Russians reiterated their desire to obtain an international ban on the use of nuclear weapons, they agreed to examine American ideas for safeguards against the diversion of nuclear materials from research and power reactors to military uses. Then, for the first time, the Russians outlined three “important principles” to be followed in creating the interna-

tional agency. First, no state or group of states should be permitted to enforce its will on other states. Second, an international atomic energy agency should not jeopardize the security of any of its members. And third, the Russians explicitly agreed with the United States that the agency should

report its activities to the Security Council and the General Assembly on the grounds that all matters affecting the security of member states were to

ATOMS FOR PEACE

be referred to the Security Council as provided in the United Nations’ charter. ©

The Soviet proposal to continue negotiations was a bombshell for Dulles and the Administration; they had assumed that the Russians would not be a party to such an international agreement. Already in its discussions with the British and Canadians the United States had virtually abandoned the March 19 outline in favor of an international agency without an atomic bank and only nominally associated with the United Nations. Passage of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as well as British and Canadian nervousness about losing their special nuclear relationship with the United States, had caused the Administration to reevaluate its original approach in favor of an agency planned and initiated by the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. France, South Africa, Australia, Portugal, and Belgzium would be invited to review the plans and, if in agreement, join the

organization as charter members. This approach, however, had its draw- 229 backs. Although the eight member-nations of the “working group” could all be justified by their status as producers or consumers of raw materials, they also constituted the principal colonial powers, including Portugal, not a member of the United Nations, and South Africa, one of the most unpopular countries in Africa and Asia. Nevertheless, in order to satisfy its allies and the law and with a vague hope of ratifying an international agreement by mid-January 1955, the Administration decided to proceed without devising a formula to add acceptable and cooperative nations to the working group.°’ Thus, the Russians’ unexpected agreement to continue discussions abruptly ended the Americans’ brief consideration of founding a private nuclear club. Not surprisingly, some State Department officials thought the Russian communiqué was only a troublesome propaganda ploy that did not represent serious intentions. For example, Gerard C. Smith, recruited from the Atomic Energy Commission in 1954 as Dulles’s atomic energy adviser, put the matter succinctly: “Do we want the Russians in the Agency? and if so, do we want them in the Agency planning now?” Although only fortyone, Smith had an impressive background and wide experience. A graduate of the Yale Law School, he had served in the Navy during World War II and had practiced law in several prominent New York firms before coming

to Washington in 1950 as special assistant to Commissioner Murray. Smith’s four years in Murray’s office exposed him to the intricacies of atomic

energy policy at the highest levels. As a Republican, he was acceptable to the Administration. Mature and knowledgeable, Smith was a natural choice as the State Department’s expert in atomic energy, which was still in 1954 an esoteric and intimidating subject within the department. Smith realized that it would not be possible first to establish the agency on American terms and then accept Soviet membership at a later

ATOMS FOR PEACE

date. Nevertheless, it was also obvious that continuation of discussions with the Soviet Union might paralyze American negotiations with other countries

or destroy the United States’ momentum toward creating a functioning agency. Smith reflected somewhat bitterly that Americans should welcome Soviet obstruction if the United States ultimately decided it did not really want an international agency. In this fashion, Americans would gain all the

good will necessary through bilateral arrangements and still control the situation while appearing to want multilateral international cooperation. The outcome would be the same as the fruitless disarmament negotiations,

with all sides agreeing in principle that the goal was desirable but disagreeing on the means to achieve it. Despite the unresolved problem of responding to the Soviets, the United States presented the second “Preliminary Outline” of an international agency for review and comment by the French, South Africans, Bel-

230 gians, Portuguese, and Australians. Predictably this outline, which became known as the October 6 plan, did not provide for pooling of nuclear materials as proposed in March. As critics of the pooling idea had stated, with-

out Russian participation it was pointless for the United States and the United Kingdom alone to release weapon materials to an international agency when other purposes would be achieved without actual physical transfer of fissionable material. Even with the Russians in the picture again, the British and Canadians, who had never really liked the pooling concept, were opposed to returning to the original March 19 atom bank idea. More important, the National Security Council in NSC 5431/1 had determined that in keeping with the Atomic Energy Act the United States would “earmark” reasonable quantities of fissionable materials for use in approved projects without actually physically placing the material in an agency bank. Although no one was certain whether the Russians would be interested in the revised proposal, no serious thought was given to returning to the original plan.*? Consequently, the Administration was forced to explore a confusing contingency plan in the event the Soviets entered seriously into the eightpower discussions. There was no doubt in the Americans’ minds that an international agency with the Russians would be far different from one without them. Strauss, for one, thought it naive to expect that the Soviet Union would honor any commitment merely to earmark material for an agency; he would not be satisfied unless the Russians actually “ponied up” the material to be held physically by the agency. The trouble with his demand, as Strauss knew full well, was that under the Atomic Energy Act it was impossible for the United States to do the same thing. In the face of the State Department’s exasperation, Strauss shrugged off the dilemma by stating

that he took a “pragmatic view” of the situation, assuming that in the agency the United States would cooperate with friendly nations first. To the

State Department’s suggestion that the United States might donate a re-

ATOMS FOR PEACE

search reactor to the agency, Strauss replied that he had already been thinking about placing just such a reactor in Puerto Rico. The only question that Strauss seemed prepared to discuss with the Russians was how to prevent the diversion of nuclear materials from power reactors to weapons. On this score, he was even willing for Commission representatives to meet with

Russian experts in Moscow, although Strauss thought the solution was simple enough: merely require all fuel elements from power reactors to be reprocessed under United Nations’ auspices. When the State Department lamented the trend toward more shadow and less substance in the United States’ plans for the international agency, Strauss replied that placing even a small amount of fissionable material at

the disposal of the agency, rather than at the complete discretion of the United States, would be severely criticized by the Joint Committee as a serious security breach. Strauss, in turn, complained that there were too

many “cooks” in the nuclear kitchen. He expressed concern over the di- 231 vided responsibility among himself, Lodge at the United Nations, and Morehead Patterson, the New York industrialist appointed to negotiate the international agreement. Strauss’s pique may have been prompted by Lodge’s “freewheeling” on the peaceful uses issues at the General Assembly.

Lodge, who had been joined in New York by C. D. Jackson for the Atoms-for-Peace item, worried both the Commission and the State Department with his penchant for departing from the prepared script. In an effort to check Lodge’s independence, the State Department had promised the British and the Canadians, as well as the Commission, that they would have prior review of Lodge’s remarks. Dulles, however, who was equally worried about keeping “a rein on the combination of Lodge and C. D. Jackson,” showed little inclination to suppress the publicity that the two men were generating at the United Nations. With the collapse of the atomic pool, Lodge and Jackson believed it was necessary for the United States to puff its international efforts with movies and atomic energy kits in order to offset Russian propaganda claims that the United States had abandoned its Atoms-for-Peace campaign. Subsequently when Andrei Y. Vyshinsky of the Soviet delegation charged that the President’s great proposal of December 1953 had been reduced to isotopes and fertilizer, Lodge and Jackson clamored for approval to make a spectacular announcement that the Atomic Energy Commission had decided to allocate to the international agency 100 kilograms of nuclear materials for peaceful projects.°! The idea of announcing the allocation had been discussed before the opening of the General Assembly session, but neither the President nor the Joint Committee had authorized the announcement. Thus, when the initial draft became “lost” at the Commission, no action could be taken. Frantically, C. D. Jackson worked on the telephones from New York while Smith lobbied from within the government to get Strauss to act. In the meantime,

ATOMS FOR PEACE

Lodge wrote directly to Eisenhower. He observed that the only way to bring the President’s program back to life would be to issue a statement that the United States had set aside a specified quantity of fissionable material ear-

marked solely for the project. Whatever the reasons for his reluctance, Strauss could hold out no longer; in a last-minute call to Jackson in New York, Strauss informed him that the State Department had cleared the announcement with White House approval. At that, Jackson drafted a paragraph that he rushed to Lodge, who was just about to begin his remarks. Inserting the paper at the very end of the speech, Lodge dramatically concluded his outline of American proposals by stating, “I have just been authorized by the President of the United States to state to you that the Atomic Energy Commission has allocated 100 kilograms of fissionable material to serve as fuel in the experimental atomic reactors to which the Secretary of State and | have previously

232 referred.” Vyshinsky had been furiously scribbling notes as Lodge talked. Jackson later recalled, “When he heard the 100 kilograms statement, [he] shrugged his shoulders, gathered up his papers, and put them in his briefcase—and that was that.” ®

PLANNING FOR GENEVA

Dulles’s United Nations speech focused attention on the proposal for the international agency and the American offer to allocate fissionable material

for peaceful purposes, but the text of the speech gave almost as much weight to calling an international scientific conference on the peaceful uses

of atomic energy. Like the international agency, the conference had its origins in the events leading up to Eisenhower’s United Nations address almost ten months earlier. Strauss had mentioned the idea to Cherwell at Bermuda; and when international discussion of Atoms for Peace reached a stalemate during spring 1954, Strauss had recalled his earlier suggestion as a way of giving substance to the President’s proposal. Strauss discussed his idea with Isidor I. Rabi, the Nobel physicist who had replaced Oppenheimer as chairman of the Commission’s general advisory committee. Although Rabi had been one of Oppenheimer’s staunchest defenders during the security investigation, Strauss greatly respected Rabi as a scientist and sought his views. Rabi accepted Strauss’s argument that an international conference might have propaganda value in winning worldwide support among scientists for the President’s plan.“ Initially Strauss and Rabi were thinking in terms of a small, strictly scientific conference, to be held in the United States and sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences or the National Science Foundation. To keep things simple, Strauss and Rabi envisaged that the delegates would attend

as scientists and not as official representatives of their nations. Strauss

ATOMS FOR PEACE

quickly obtained assurances that the National Science Foundation would consider sponsoring the conference. After checking with the White House, Strauss announced in a speech before the Los Angeles Foreign Affairs

Council on April 19, 1954, that the President intended “to convene an international conference of scientists at a later date this year .. . [to explore] the benign and peaceful uses of atomic energy.” © Gerard Smith offered the State Department’s full cooperation in arranging the conference; but a host of uncertainties, many of them the same as those delaying the whole Atoms-for-Peace plan, made it impossible to come to any final decisions during spring 1954. Would the Soviet Union and other communist countries attend the conference, and could it be held

without Russian participation? Would the United States be pressured by other nations to release scientific information that was still classified under the terms of the 1946 act, and was there any possibility of a successful

conference without the release of really substantive technical information 233 on nuclear power reactors? Could such an international conference be held in the United States without imposing embarrassing restrictions on com-

munist delegates and other scientists who held views unpopular with Americans? Should the conference be tied to the President’s atom bank proposal, or should it deal with a broader range of scientific and technical questions? Rabi discussed these and other considerations with the general advisory committee at its May meeting. Although the conference might well win worldwide support among scientists for the President’s proposal, the committee members were even more enthusiastic about the opportunity for ‘a real forum for the exchange of information in biology, medicine, basic science, and engineering.” There was general agreement that political 1s-

sues should be excluded. Walter G. Whitman, a chemical engineer from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a veteran adviser to the Commission, was captivated by the bold approach the President had taken; he urged that the conference be organized around a series of sessions at which delegates would present technical papers on peaceful applications of atomic energy. The conference agenda, the committee agreed, should be drafted by an international working group. Through Smith at the State Department Strauss arranged for Rabi’s appointment as head of the preliminary planning group and obtained permission for Rabi to discuss these suggestions with his counterparts in the United Kingdom and Canada. Even before going abroad, Rabi learned from embassy officials in Washington that both nations had reservations about the political nature of the conference, the wisdom of holding it in the United States, and the feasibility of convening it in 1954. When Rabi, however, took account of these criticisms in drafting a “prospectus” for the conference in July 1954, Smith and his associates at the State Department objected to holding the conference outside the United States. They questioned

ATOMS FOR PEACE

whether the conference could really avoid political issues; if it did not entertain political issues, the conference would lose its official status and would raise the sticky question of whether delegates from Communist China and East Germany could attend. One obvious solution would be to hold the conference under United Nations auspices, and the State Department was

leaning in that direction. In August 1954 Rabi visited England and France, where his discussions with leading scientists greatly expanded his conception of the conference. In both formal and private meetings Sir John Cockcroft, head of the British nuclear research establishment, proposed a wide range of subjects for the conference agenda, including the social and economic aspects of nuclear energy, basic nuclear science, nuclear technology, research reactors, nuclear power, medical and biological applications, industrial uses of radioactive isotopes, health and safety, education and training, and an ex-

234 hibition of nuclear information and equipment. Rabi and Cockcroft agreed that the conference would be valuable if the United States, Britain, and Canada all presented papers of real substance on the technical aspects of building nuclear power reactors. Rabi suggested that the conference prob-

ably could not be held before spring 1955 in order to give British and American officials time to declassify information that could now be released under the terms of the new Atomic Energy Act. It was also apparent that if their broad agenda was adopted, the conference would have to be sponsored

by the United Nations. The French were not happy with United Nations sponsorship but agreed to follow the American lead. In his United Nations speech on September 23, 1954, Dulles committed the United States to a conference to be sponsored by the international organization. In working with the British and Canadians on the de-

tails of the agenda, Smith was joined by John A. Hall, director of the Commission’s office of international affairs. A Harvard Ph.D. in government, Hall had joined the State Department after World War II as an adviser to the United States delegation to the United Nations, before going to the Commission in 1948 as its resident expert on liaison with the State Department. Urbane and debonair, Hall looked every inch the professional diplomat. The same age as Smith and with a comparable professional background, Hall had come to know and respect his State Department counterpart during Smith’s four years at the Commission. In planning for the conference on the international organization, Smith and Hall could draw on Cockcroft’s memorandum, suggestions from a number of French scientists and representatives of the European scientific community, and strong staff support from the Commission. Robert A. Charpie, a physicist with Union Carbide at Oak Ridge, compiled drafts of the agenda with help from Hafstad, Kenneth Davis, and others. In planning the technical content of the agenda, the group was concerned that many proposed topics could not be discussed in American, British, or Canadian

ATOMS FOR PEACE

papers because important technical data on power reactor technology were still listed as confidential in the new tripartite classification guide drafted in England early in October; some data, relating to the costs of producing

fissionable material and heavy water, were still classified secret or top secret.

After extensive discussion the Commission decided early in January 1955 that the conference papers would be permitted to go beyond the classification guide in only a few specific instances. American delegates could be permitted to discuss the economics of producing uranium concentrates for reactor feed but not actual costs of material from individual sources; the sales price but not the production cost of heavy water; the cost of uranium235 but only up to a 20-percent enrichment; the general features only of one obsolescent type of reactor fuel element; and details of the aqueous fuel for a homogenous reactor unlikely to be of practical value. None of this

information would reveal anything about the leading edge of power reactor 235 technology in the United States. Still, the agenda was far broader than Rabi’s original conception of it, and it seemed likely that many delegates, especially from smaller nations with no atomic energy program, would find

much of substance in the papers to be presented by scientists from the western nations.° By this time the United Nations General Assembly had approved the American proposal for the international conference, and Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold had taken steps to create the official conference organization. In addition to the agenda, Rabi and Hall were also prepared to suggest appointments of conference officials and rules of procedure. Rabi would serve as the United States member of the United Nations advisory committee that would make formal arrangements for the conference. Rabi was also successful in obtaining the appointment of Walter Whitman of the general advisory committee as secretary-general of the conference. United States officials, especially Strauss, were relieved to have an American in this strategic position. The Americans were willing to concede appointing

a scientist from a neutral nation as president of the conference. Over Strauss’s strong opposition, the State Department accepted Britain’s nomination of Homi J. Bhabha of India as president; but the department insisted

that the conference be held in Geneva, Switzerland, largely because it would be more economical to use existing United Nations buildings there rather than build new facilities elsewhere.

BILATERAL AGREEMENTS

While the United Nations organized the international scientific conference to be held at Geneva, the United States pressed ahead with its own program for the international development of atomic energy. On November 4, 1954,

ATOMS FOR PEACE

Eisenhower had appointed Morehead Patterson to be the principal United States Atoms-for-Peace negotiator. Patterson, who had directed development of equipment for classified projects at Savannah River and Hanford while he was president of American Machine and Foundry, had just completed his first major diplomatic assignment as United States representative at the 1954 disarmament talks conducted in London during May and June. He accepted the President’s challenge to produce “deeds, not words” by directing a vigorous program of bilateral discussions while at the same time advancing negotiations to establish the International Atomic Energy Agency.” The first agreements for cooperation concluded in 1955 modestly provided for American assistance in establishing research reactors abroad. The research bilaterals, as they were called, provided for the exchange of unclassified information on the design, construction, and experimental op-

236 eration of research reactors. In addition, the Commission agreed to lease to each participating nation not more than six kilograms (at any one time) of uranium enriched to 20-percent uranium-235. The agreements also required cooperating countries to maintain adequate safeguards and accounting procedures as well as to permit American inspection of research re-

actors in which leased fuel was used. Finally, the research bilaterals mandated the reprocessing of all spent fuel elements by the United States. From the Commission’s perspective, the military potential of such transactions was minor. ” By the time the Geneva conference was convened in August 1955, the Commission had negotiated two dozen research bilaterals. The first of these agreements was concluded with the government of Turkey on June 10, 1955, after the Joint Committee was assured that the Turkish bilateral was not “open ended” in its provisions for the lease of special nuclear materials. Typical of the agreements signed at this time, at the request of the Turkish government, American firms would be allowed to sell research reactors to

Turkey and to provide other assistance including information related to health and safety problems, the use of reactors in medical therapy, and the

use of radioactive isotopes in biological, agricultural, and industrial research. By 1961 the United States had negotiated thirty-eight research bilaterals with thirty-seven participating countries. ” The Commission also offered technical assistance to foreign countries developing research reactor plans, including advice in selecting an

appropriate reactor and guidance in contacting United States industrial firms to obtain detailed assistance in solving design problems. Once a design was adopted, Commission staff experts assisted in preparing a hazard evaluation report. Although the United States did not assure operational safety of the foreign research reactor or assume liability for accidents, the Commission’s technical committee reviewed the hazard report along with the research plans before offering financial assistance or allocating fuel.”

ATOMS FOR PEACE

Of greater concern to the Administration and the Commission were the power bilateral agreements, negotiated at the same time, and often in conjunction with the research bilaterals. In January 1955 the Commission perceived a close relationship between United States foreign policies on

nuclear power and nuclear weapons. To maintain American nuclear strength, the Commission advised the National Security Council that the United States had to obtain uranium abroad, establish overseas bases, and convince its allies that nuclear weapons could be legitimately used against communist aggression. Although the Atoms-for-Peace program could not reduce foreign anxiety concerning nuclear war, the Commission believed that atomic power contributing to the “peaceful well-being of the world” would greatly assist in attaining these objectives while at the same time refuting Soviet propaganda that the United States was concerned solely with the military atom.”

Thus, from the Commission’s perspective, priority was given to 237 aggressive implementation of the foreign power reactor program. Only secondarily did the Commission support multilateral projects such as the International Atomic Energy Agency. In fact, because power bilaterals offered political and economic advantages, as well as maximum supervision of foreign activities, Commissioner Murray hoped the United States would

continue negotiating bilateral agreements even after the international agency was established. On the other hand, Murray, who had long advocated a more vigorous American program, did not object to framing bilat-

eral agreements in such a way that they would be compatible with the international agency or any other multilateral group of nations that the United States approved. A year had now passed since the President had made his momentous

speech at the United Nations. During those twelve months not only the American government but also its allies and the Soviet Union had attempted to respond, each in its own way, to the proposal that had captured world attention. With the failure to make any headway on either disarmament or a moratorium on thermonuclear tests, the urgency for some agree-

ment on an international agency became more apparent. In the face of Soviet objections, Eisenhower had determined to press ahead without the Russians, even if that meant limiting international cooperation to a series of bilateral arrangements. The unexpected announcement of Soviet support in September, however, had revived the Administration’s hopes for the international agency. The primary outlook for the new organizations and for the peaceful uses conference suggested that Atoms for Peace might be successfully launched on the diplomatic front in 1955. Still to be determined was the best course the Administration might take in pursuit of the peaceful atom at home and abroad.

CHAPTER 9

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

The efforts of John Foster Dulles in the State Department and Henry Cabot

Lodge and C. D. Jackson in the United Nations in the closing weeks of 1954 at last had given the Eisenhower Administration some evidence of positive achievement in establishing the framework for international control of atomic energy. Unless the Russians balked again, the charter for the new international agency might be completed for ratification by the time the nations of the world convened in Geneva, Switzerland, in September 1955

for the opening of an international conference on the peaceful uses of atomic energy. Erecting the international framework, however, constituted only a small part of the President’s proposal. It was equally important to the Administration that the United States produce something more tangible than draft charters, diplomatic notes, and grandiose plans for international meetings. Eisenhower sensed that his dreams for the peaceful atom would attain reality only when informed citizens in America and throughout the

world had practical evidence of the peaceful uses of atomic energy. As 1954 produced more talk than solid results, the President became more impatient. He seemed determined in the new year that the nation should produce something, if only a symbol, that demonstrated the beneficial application of nuclear technology. The President’s determination sent ripples of influence through the National Security Council to several departments and agencies, but none

was more directly affected than the Atomic Energy Commission. As the nation’s manager and promoter of nuclear technology, the Commission was

the one agency that could produce the hardware or other visible accom-

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

plishments that the President was seeking. In one respect, Eisenhower's personal interest offered the Commission an exceptional opportunity: It assured the agency a sympathetic ear, if not uncritical endorsement of its programs and budgets. In other respects, however, meeting the President’s expectations posed a dilemma for Strauss and his associates. On the one hand, no group could have been more eager to fulfill the President’s hopes by demonstrating the practical benefits of the atom. All the Commissioners personally believed in the promise of atomic energy and

were as anxious as the President to see that promise realized. They were not immune to the sense of moral compulsion that drove the President to seek some redeeming value in a new technology that threatened the future of civilization. They responded to the challenge posed by the British and the Russians in the international race for nuclear power. They shared the view that nuclear technology could be used as a benign force, demonstrating the superiority of the democratic system and a capitalistic economy, as 239 well as a horrifying threat in the Cold War.

On the other hand, Strauss and his colleagues were also aware of their responsibility as managers and guardians of a new technology to see that it was developed wisely, safely, and economically. During the Eisenhower Administration, nuclear technology had caught the imaginations of both influential business leaders and many ordinary citizens at home and abroad. The almost unbridled enthusiasm over the potential uses of atomic energy raised the danger of heavy political and financial commitments to questionable projects. Precipitous decisions could result in embarrassing the Administration, imposing severe financial losses on American business, endangering the public safety, fostering monopolistic control of the new technology, undermining private ownership of electric utilities, dam-

aging national prestige, and losing the Cold War. In short, the dilemma was how to promote and support the Administration’s pursuit of the peace-

ful atom while at the same time exercising responsible control over its development.

NUCLEAR POWER AND FOREIGN POLICY

No one was more sensitive to the relationships between nuclear power and foreign policy at the beginning of 1955 than was Lewis Strauss. For six months Strauss and Roy Snapp, his representative on the National Security Council’s planning board, had been struggling to steer the council’s foreign policy pronouncements in a direction that made sense in terms of nuclear technology. Fully convinced that the United States could employ the promise of nuclear power as a major instrument in foreign policy, the planning board had become impatient with the technical reservations and objections

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

that Snapp relayed from the Commission. After listening to Snapp’s argu-

ments, the planning board had given up the idea that research reactors could be a credible expression of the Atoms-for-Peace program, but the board refused to abandon small reactors as the quickest way to demonstrate nuclear power abroad. This time the board recommended small power reactors producing up to 20,000 kilowatts, on the theory that reactors of that size might be economical in certain remote, high-cost power areas in for-

eign countries. The Commission considered the proposal risky because there was no solid evidence that a foreign market for small power reactors existed. !

The planning board’s final version, sent to the National Security Council early in March 1955, represented the first formal restatement of the Administration’s policy on the international atom since April 1953. The

early development of nuclear power was still the key to maintaining the

240 United States’ lead in nuclear technology. The nation’s nuclear facilities and technology were “a great asset in the effort to promote a peaceful world compatible with a free and dynamic American society.” Promoting the peaceful uses of nuclear energy could “generate free world respect

and support for the constructive purposes of U.S. foreign policy, .. . strengthen American world leadership and disprove the Communists’ propaganda charges that the U.S. is concerned solely with the destructive uses of the atom.” Both the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom, according to the policy statement, were challenging America’s superiority for promoting nuclear power. More veiled in this version than in earlier drafts was the military justification for Atoms for Peace, but the Administration understood that assistance to other nations, particularly Belgium and South Africa, in developing nuclear technology could be vital in assuring continued American access to foreign sources of uranium ore.” Early in the National Security Council meeting on March 10, 1955, Strauss questioned a statement in the policy paper that “private rather than

government financing should be used to the maximum extent possible, without jeopardizing the early development of nuclear power.” Strauss complained that the statement implied that private financing would delay development, but Eisenhower, probably to Strauss’s consternation, took just the opposite view. The President thought that atomic power should be de-

veloped without too much concern about the role of private industry, although he said he firmly believed in private enterprise. He thought the council’s first concern should be the national interest, not the demands of private industry. The council quickly agreed that peaceful uses would be developed “as rapidly as the interests of the United States dictate, seeking private financing wherever possible.” * The new policy certainly would not help Strauss in promoting private development of nuclear power in the face of Joint Committee demands for a government program.

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

STRAUSS BUILDS HIS TEAM

Despite his aggressive leadership as chairman during 1954, Strauss was not in the best position for the impending public debate as 1955 began. Three Commissioners—Zuckert, Smyth, and Campbell—had left office during the last six months of the year. To replace Zuckert and Smyth, the President had accepted Strauss’s recommendations, nominating two distinguished scientists, both of whom had served on the Commission’s general advisory committee. Willard F. Libby, a talented chemist, had been associated with the atomic energy project since the 1940s, first with gaseousdiffusion research during World War II and then as a scientist working under Commission research contracts at the University of Chicago. As

a member of the general advisory committee since 1950, Libby had

weapon development.* 241 staunchly supported the Commission’s activities in basic research and

Although Libby was later to win the Nobel prize in chemistry for his

radiocarbon dating techniques, John von Neumann was even more renowned than Libby at the time of his nomination to the Commission. One of the nation’s most respected physicists, a world authority in mathematics, and a pioneer in the theory of games, von Neumann had built at Princeton one of the first large electronic computers, which had helped to resolve some complex design problems associated with thermonuclear weapons. ° Strauss had known von Neumann personally for many years and admired his friend for his intellectual brilliance and his unstinting devotion of his talents to national defense in the Cold War. Strauss could hardly have done better in choosing men with a broad understanding of nuclear science and technology, but both were relatively inexperienced in the rough and tumble of political life in Washington. Presumably they would confine themselves to technical matters and leave the initiative on policy to Strauss, as neither Zuckert nor Smyth had been willing to do. As trusted members of the inner establishment, neither nominee seemed vulnerable to challenge by the Joint Committee. Libby, in fact, was confirmed speedily without a formal hearing, but Congress adjourned late in 1954 without acting on the von Neumann nomination. Strauss learned privately that there was some uneasiness in the Joint Committee about von Neumann’s security record. There was some concern that von Neumann was a Close friend of Oppenheimer’s and that he held an appointment at the Institute for Advanced Study, where Oppenheimer was director. For years both men had kept their highly classified atomic energy files in a common vault at the institute, and there were rumors that Oppenheimer’s secretary, who had maintained his classified files, would now work for von Neumann. Buried in von Neumann’s security file was a notation that he had written a letter on behalf of one defendant in the Canadian atomic spy trials in 1946.

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

Strauss responded by noting that the accused person had been acquitted. No information in the file was new; nor had it prevented the government from using von Neumann on highly classified projects for almost a decade. The security problem at the institute had been resolved after removing all of Oppenheimer’s classified files from the facility; and, Strauss assured the council, Oppenheimer’s secretary would not be working for von Neumann. No one inside the establishment seemed concerned about von Neumann’s

personal integrity, much less his loyalty, but the potential for a second Oppenheimer case was frightening. Eisenhower agreed with Strauss that the Administration should stand firm on the nomination, and members of the Joint Committee cooperated by keeping the matter quiet and arranging to meet with von Neumann individually and privately to avoid giving hints to the press. So touchy was the whole affair, however, that von Neumann’s confirmation was delayed until mid-March 1955.°

242 Strauss also had to accommodate the departure of several key members of the staff. Nichols privately told the chairman in September that he would be leaving in spring 1955 to set himself up as an engineering consultant.’ Some members of the staff believed that having purged the staff of some of the “liberal,” antimilitary holdovers from the Lilienthal period, Nichols considered his job essentially complete; the headquarters staff seemed fully in the control of former Army engineers from the Manhattan Project. Others guessed that Nichols was leaving because, with Strauss as chairman, he saw no possibility of exercising the kind of operational control over the agency that General Groves had enjoyed in the Manhattan Project. Strauss was perhaps most reluctant to see Hafstad resign as director

of reactor development. After five years on the job Hafstad was ready to move into a more lucrative position in business, which opened up at the Chase National Bank in New York with Strauss’s recommendation. Over the years Strauss and Hafstad had become personal friends, and Strauss had come to rely heavily on Hafstad’s judgment in technical matters.® Replacing Hafstad was to be something of an ordeal for Strauss be-

cause the issue led to another round in his endless feud with Murray. In this case Murray was absolutely unyielding in his determination to see Rickover as Hafstad’s successor. Strauss could hardly deny Rickover’s technical qualifications on the basis of his record in developing naval propulsion reactors. The undeniable, if somewhat embarrassing, fact was that Rickover was the only Commission official who could lay claim to success in building power reactors. But Rickover’s highly individualistic style, his close ties to the Joint Committee, and his hard-nosed approach to relations with private industry gave Strauss reason to seek other candidates. Strauss’s friends in private industry and leading scientists in the national laboratories warned the chairman that Rickover’s appointment would lead

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

to mass defections from the Commission’s reactor development program. Without committing himself too firmly, Strauss supported Richard L. Doan, a physicist who directed the nuclear activities of the Phillips Petroleum Company, which operated the Commission’s national reactor testing station in Idaho. With Strauss and Murray at a stand-off, Libby refused to take sides, and Strauss was deprived of von Neumann’s support pending his Congressional confirmation. ?

Finally, late in February 1955, a compromise candidate emerged in W. Kenneth Davis, who had been serving as acting director of the reactor development division since Hafstad’s departure.'!° Davis was a chemical engineer who had joined Hafstad’s staff in April 1954. Just thirty-six years old, Davis had four years of experience in nuclear technology with the California Research and Development Company, a subsidiary of Standard Oil of California, where he had worked on the Commission’s Livermore

project to develop a large accelerator for producing plutonium and tritium. 243 Like Hafstad, Davis was not a specialist in reactor technology, but he had demonstrated good judgment and administrative ability in his presentations to the Commissioners. He had quickly grasped the issues involved in bringing industry into nuclear power development, and he was a principal architect of the power demonstration reactor program. For technical support and a working knowledge of the division’s activities, Davis recruited as his deputy Louis H. Roddis, Jr., a former naval engineering officer who had been a member of Rickover’s senior staff since 1946. !! Strauss also lost the services of two other men who had been at the center of the Commission’s activities since the 1940s. Roy Snapp had organized the secretariat and then had served as the Commission’s represen-

tative on the planning board of the National Security Council. Edward R. | Trapnell, after working in public information matters and special projects like the New York briefing of President-elect Eisenhower, had become director of Congressional relations. Both men found the agency under Strauss increasingly uncongenial and decided to leave government for the business world. !?

Snapp was replaced as secretary of the Commission by Woodford B.

McCool, whom Snapp had recruited in 1953. McCool, however, would never become one of Strauss’s protégés. Intensely loyal to the Commission, always tough and hard driving, McCool would occasionally clear the Commission meeting room of all staff members so that Strauss and Murray could vent their anger and frustration in private. Nonetheless, McCool principally devoted himself to institutionalizing a professional secretariat that insured

the accurate recording of the Commission’s decision-making process. In time, it became well known throughout the Commission that one would “get it straight” from McCool, who could be distant and rigid but who above all protected the integrity of the decision process.

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

THE NUCLEAR MERCHANT SHIP

During a long session of the National Security Council on March 10, 1955, the discussion drifted to the possibility of installing a nuclear propulsion plant in a merchant ship. Eisenhower was fascinated with this idea, which had come from Admiral Arthur W. Radford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs

of Staff. The United States had been the first nation in the world to use nuclear power to propel warships, as the spectacular performance of the Nautilus, the world’s first nuclear submarine, had just demonstrated. What

could better promote Atoms for Peace than to use the same or a similar propulsion system in a commercial vessel?

Strauss assured the President that the Commission already had a contractor investigating the idea, but he was more than a little troubled by Eisenhower's half-serious suggestion that the Commission try to get a 244 nuclear-powered commercial ship in operation within three months. When Strauss reported two weeks later that the ship would cost $12 million and take two years to build, he suggested that by that time the Atoms-for-Peace program would be so far along that the ship would have no great impact on world opinion. The ship could be completed sooner, Strauss admitted, with a high priority, but such a move would inevitably interfere with developing nuclear ships for the Navy. Even on a less pressing schedule, Strauss said, Rickover had reservations about the idea. Rickover doubted that a wellqualified crew could be trained in two years, and he thought it risky to rely

on a power plant as new as that in the Nautilus to maintain scheduled sailing dates during a well-publicized world tour. ' Ignoring these warnings, the National Security Council reaffirmed its directive to the Commission to “make an urgent study, including estimates of cost and time of completion, of installing at the earliest possible date a nuclear reactor propulsion unit in a U.S. merchant ship, which ship might travel throughout the free world to dramatize” the Atoms-for-Peace program. Working almost around the clock with headquarters and feld personnel, Davis completed the report on April 5. The next day, with no time

to clear the draft with his fellow Commissioners, Strauss presented the report to the National Security Council. Although the time estimated to complete the project had now risen to thirty months and the cost to $31 million, both Eisenhower and Vice-President Nixon were enthusiastic. Strauss again warned that the project might delay Rickover’s work on nuclear submarines, but the council approved high-priority construction of a ship using a standard dry-cargo hull and a reactor similar to that in the Nautilus. When Strauss conveyed this decision to the Commissioners a week later, they were faced with another fait accompli in formulating nuclear policy. '*

Despite the President’s endorsement in a New York speech in April 1955, the ship project foundered in Congress. Strauss and the Commission-

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

ers set aside their private misgivings and loyally supported the project before the Subcommittee on Authorizing Legislation of the Joint Committee,

but Holifield and the subcommittee skillfully used Rickover to slow it down. The spectacular success of the Nautilus had vindicated the Joint Committee’s tenacious support of Rickover in his efforts in summer 1953 to obtain promotion to rear admiral and thereby remain head of the naval propulsion project. Carefully avoiding any comment on the wisdom of the

President’s decision to build the ship, Rickover testified in May 1955 that the project would inevitably interfere with his own efforts to build a nuclear navy. Rickover’s reservations were enough to derail the project, at least temporarily, as Holifield’s subcommittee deleted it from the authorization bill.'®

THE SMALL POWER REACTOR afo Strauss and the Commission had just as much trouble curbing the Administration’s enthusiasm for the small power reactor. In January 1955 Nel-

son A. Rockefeller, who had succeeded C. D. Jackson as the President’s special assistant, became infatuated with the idea that power reactors might serve as the basis for an “Atomic Marshall Plan” for the world. Rockefeller was anxious to implement the council’s directive as boldly as possible by offering research reactors to friendly countries and rapidly declassifying power reactor information while providing assurances on the availability of enriched uranium. Rockefeller envisioned the United States paying about $15 million for at least forty research reactors, as well as aiding India, Japan, Brazil (where there were important impending elections), and Italy with immediate power reactor programs. Neither the Commission nor the Department of State, however, was enthusiastic about Rockefeller’s expan-

sive plans. From the State Department came complaints that no one— including foreign service officers, Commission staff, or prospective foreign

recipients—knew enough about technology to implement Rockefeller’s suggestion. Furthermore, with Strauss’s concurrence, Gerard Smith objected to the temptation to push atomic energy beyond its technical possibilities in order to gain short-term psychological advantages. '° Rockefeller, nevertheless, prevailed upon the President to announce

during his commencement address at Pennsylvania State University on June 11, 1955, that the United States had made important progress in negotiating agreements with ten foreign countries. Furthermore, Eisenhower said the United States would “contribute half the cost” of building research reactors abroad. In addition to announcing publicly the essence of the National Security Council’s decision to promote American-built nuclear reactors abroad, the President promised sufficient technological and material assistance to support foreign development. Yet, for all of his opti-

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

mism, Eisenhower confessed to the graduates that the social and political problems accompanying nuclear power development could “be foreseen but dimly.” The solutions, he suggested, might require the lifetime work of some of those present that day at University Park. '’ In the face of the Administration’s enthusiasm over small power reactors, Strauss had to resort to delaying tactics rather than overt opposition. Despite occasional prodding from Murray, Strauss avoided the subject for months. In July 1955 he told the National Security Council that the Commission was already involved in several projects to develop small reactors and that he did not think that the council should dictate the specific size or

design. The precise size of the reactor was a technical matter that he thought the Commission should decide. When the President seemed to accept his argument, Strauss assumed that the council agreed, and he later confirmed with the council’s staff his conclusion that the meeting had re-

246 duced the directive to a mere recommendation. '®

A SECOND INVITATION TO INDUSTRY

Strauss had broad support within the Commission and the staff for his opin-

ion that a precise requirement for a power reactor did not make much sense. The most economically promising reactors appeared to be those several times larger in capacity than the 10,000 kilowatts now prescribed by the National Security Council, and as yet no one reactor type was clearly

superior to any other for this application. A better approach seemed one the Commission was already considering: to ask industry to submit proposals for developing and building reactors smaller than those resulting from the first round of the power demonstration reactor program. '?

Other considerations also recommended a second round. First, it would allay criticism that the terms of the first round limited participation only to teams of very large equipment manufacturers and utilities. Second, small electric cooperatives were effectively excluded by the Commission’s refusal to contribute to plant costs under the first round. Third, some way was needed to accept the proposal from the Consumers Public Power District, which Libby considered technically superior to the others. And fourth, although it was never discussed explicitly in formal Commission meetings, Strauss was determined to keep the government out of commercial reactor development after Shippingport was built. So fixed was he on this point that he risked challenging Eisenhower’s direct orders at the March 10 meeting of the National Security Council to give more weight to speedy development of nuclear power than to private participation by industry. Strauss hoped that Commission approval of the second round would dissipate the criticisms from all sides. In addition to the kinds of assistance

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

offered in the first round, the second invitation, announced on September 21, 1955, requested proposals in three specific output ranges, all less than 40,000 kilowatts, and offered broader assistance in providing that the Commission would take title to any portions of the plant constructed with government funds. In this sense, the second round represented a return to the type of joint government-industry project adopted for Shippingport. By establishing the deadline for proposals as February 1, 1956, the Commission also acknowledged the charge that the response time allowed for the first round had been too short to permit many companies to participate.” Although announcement of the second round was received favorably in most quarters, it actually exacerbated relations with the National Security Council. Members of the planning board, led by Robert R. Bowie and other State Department representatives, insisted that the small-reactor requirement had not been rescinded. They were incensed that Strauss had

chosen to ignore the President’s order and cavalierly to assume that the 247 Commission’s judgment in this matter should prevail. Navy Commander Charles E. Nelson, who had replaced Snapp as the Commission’s representative on the planning board, was frustrated by what he considered Bowie’s sincere but wrong-headed notion that the small reactor could bring immediate success for the Atoms-for-Peace program and that there were unique aspects of small-reactor technology that the Commission was ignoring in the demonstration programs. So vigorous was the planning board’s reaction that Strauss had to withdraw his original report on the small reactor, which had attempted to finesse the presidential requirement. Strauss tried to make light of the matter on February 9, 1956, when he told the Security Council that he was facing a “soft impeachment” on grounds of incompetence and insubordination. First, Strauss questioned whether the planning board was really qualified to select the type and size of reactor most appropriate for use abroad; second, Strauss contended that the Commission, through the demonstration program, had done far more to develop reactor technology than the single small-reactor project could hope to accomplish. The President agreed, and the requirement in the March 14, 1955, directive was revised to read that the United States “as rapidly as possible” would develop “power reactors of an appropriate size and design for use abroad.” The implication was clear that the Commission, not the National Security Council, would determine what was appropriate.?!

DIXON-YATES AGAIN

During winter 1955 Strauss also faced renewed political conflict over the Dixon-Yates proposal. An early action of the new Democratic majority on the Joint Committee had called upon the Commission to cancel the con-

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

tract, but that request in itself indicated that the Democrats still did not have enough votes to kill Dixon-Yates in a direct assault. Instead, they resorted to delaying tactics, attempted unsuccessfully to call hearings on the contract, and tried to put pressure on insurance companies to withdraw financial support from the project. Under the circumstances, Strauss took a hard line against the almost daily attacks on Dixon-Yates. He consistently turned aside Murray’s attempts to get a formal Commission vote on canceling the contract and elected to consider Kisenhower’s strong public statements of support as binding on the Commission.”

Failing to shake Strauss or the President, the Democrats quietly began probing every detail of the contract negotiations during the previous summer for any evidence of irregularity. Early in February a promising clue turned up in some sleuthing by Joseph Volpe, Jr., who had been retained by a group of intervenors opposing the waiver of certain debt-financing

248 requirements by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Volpe, former general counsel at the Atomic Energy Commission and one of Oppenheimer’s attorneys during the security hearings, knew how to use the Washington bureaucracy to gain information, and he had no compunctions about embarrassing Strauss. Following rumors that some “mystery man” had been involved in the contract negotiations between the Dixon- Yates group and the government, Volpe discovered that Adolphe H. Wenzell, a vice-president and director of the First Boston Corporation, had served as a consultant to the Bureau of the Budget on the Dixon-Yates project during

the first four months of 1954, at the same time that he was advising the Dixon-Yates group on financing construction of the power plant. Volpe alerted Senators Clinton Anderson and Lister Hill, who asked the bureau for information about Wenzell’s employment. When it developed that records of Wenzell’s participation had not been included in supposedly complete chronologies prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission and the bureau on the Dixon-Yates negotiations, Hill in a Senate speech on February 18, 1955, charged the Administration with concealing important facts

about Dixon-Yates. In the scramble to check their records, bureau and Commission officials found additional instances of Wenzell’s participation, revelations that inevitably led to more charges of a cover-up. ”°

Both Eisenhower and Strauss, however, stood firm in the face of political sniping. Unless positive evidence of improper or illegal activities by Wenzell turned up, they thought Dixon-Yates would probably weather the storm. More serious at the moment were reports from Memphis that the city would not accept power from the Dixon-Yates plant even if it were built. During the early phases of contract negotiations in summer 1954, Memphis city officials had expressed no enthusiasm for the Dixon- Yates solution, mainly because the plant would be located across the Mississippi River from Memphis, in Arkansas; the city would have to rely upon another

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

state for rate and service regulations. There was also some sympathy in Memphis for the Tennessee Valley Authority, which had been providing power to the city for more than a decade. Two alternatives to Dixon- Yates were apparent: the city could join pro-T'VA forces, overwhelming in Tennessee, to obtain construction of a TVA power plant on the eastern side of the river, or the city could build its own power plant. Walter Von Treschkow, a veteran promoter of electric utility financing, was urging the latter course on city leaders as a practical solution and on the Republican party as a way of halting TVA growth while avoiding the inevitable political damage to the party from a direct assault on TVA.”* As new charges in the Wenzell affair continued to fuel the DixonYates controversy in Washington during spring 1955, Memphis leaders became more explicit in rejecting Dixon-Yates power, if only in private communications to the Commission and the Bureau of the Budget. General

Manager Nichols took these seriously enough in March to start some con- 249 tingency planning for terminating the contract. In June the issue came to a head when the Securities and Exchange Commission began hearings on debt-financing of the Dixon- Yates project. When Volpe announced plans to call Wenzell to testify, Sherman Adams of the White House asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to postpone the hearings for several days. They were not renewed until the House had voted on the TVA appropriations bill, which included funds both to build a transmission line from the Dixon-Yates plant across the river to TVA territory and to construct a TVA steam plant at Fulton, Tennessee, on the east bank of the river. When

the House voted down the Fulton plant, the Memphis officials publicly declared their intention to build a municipal power plant.” This decision, plus the Democrats’ determination to call hearings before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly, spelled the doom of Dixon-Yates. In response to a barrage of questions at a press conference on July 6, Eisenhower expressed his delight that Mem-

phis was taking responsibility for its power needs at the local level. As Senator Estes Kefauver continued to make headlines and political capital out of Wenzell’s testimony at the hearings, Strauss began to back away from Dixon-Yates. On July 16, Eisenhower accepted the recommendation from the Atomic Energy Commission and the Bureau of the Budget that the contract be terminated.”° Even then the political repercussions of Dixon- Yates did not end. A legal opinion from the Atomic Energy Commission and a ruling from the Comptroller General cast doubt on the validity of the Dixon- Yates contract on the grounds that Wenzell’s activity had constituted a conflict of interest.

The Commission’s effort to negotiate a cancellation settlement with the Dixon-Yates group was thus aborted, and the company went to court in an effort to recoup up to $3.5 million already spent in the project.”

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

REACTORS AT GENEVA

While Strauss and the Administration fought to save the Dixon-Yates plan in early summer 1955, the Commission was at the same time preparing for an unprecedented presentation of American accomplishments in nuclear technology. The United States had already taken the initiative in organizing the international conference on the peaceful uses of atomic energy that the United Nations was sponsoring in Geneva in August. In planning the conference the Commission had decided in the United States’ presentation to highlight American achievements in developing commercial nuclear power. Mirroring the five-year reactor program, the American papers and exhibits presented at Geneva were impressive in the breadth and sophistication of the technology produced under the Commission’s auspices. While some

nations in Western Europe could cite experiments in reactor physics or

250 vague plans for designing experimental reactors, the United States presented an astounding panoply of richly detailed information, not only in reactor technology but also in other areas of the nuclear sciences. American delegates described in full engineering detail reactors actually operating or under construction in the United States, including the full-scale Shippingport plant.”8 The only nations potentially capable of challenging the United States in developing power reactors were the Soviet Union and the United King-

dom. Although the Russians described a small power reactor already in operation, questions by American delegates at the Geneva conference revealed that the plant was neither very sophisticated in design nor efficient in operation—smaller and much less efficient than the Shippingport plant, which would be far from economically competitive with conventional power plants. Surprising about the Soviet presentation in Geneva was the highly technical competence of Russian scientists and engineers generally and the large numbers of students in training in universities and technical schools. The British reactor effort was miniscule by comparison with the fiveyear reactor and power demonstration programs, but it was sharply focused on commercial power. The British put their best efforts, not in the scientific and technical exhibit at the United Nations site, but rather in the commercial exhibit in downtown Geneva. Equally impressive were the British descriptions of the new Calder Hall reactors, then under construction. These

dual-purpose reactors would produce both plutonium for weapons and power for civilian use; the plutonium subsidy and the relatively high cost of power in Britain were enough to make the Calder Hall plants look economically attractive as power producers. Thus, the British effort, although modest by comparison, commanded a sense of reality and directed purpose

that the American program lacked. As one news magazine put it, the United States was ahead in the race for nuclear power “but not as far ahead as you might think.” One American scientist was reported as saying: “If

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

the United States vanished off the face of the earth tomorrow, the rest of the world could easily overtake our atomic science within three years.” 7° Overseas competition was developing, but Strauss continued to re-

mind the Congress and the public that American achievements had been substantial. By late 1955 all four projects in the first round of the power demonstration reactor program were moving forward. The Detroit Edison consortium had formed the Power Reactor Development Company, which was planning to build a breeder reactor named for Enrico Fermi near Monroe, Michigan. Both the Consumers and Yankee proposals had been revised to conform with the terms of the first-round invitation, and the offer by the Nuclear Power Group had been replaced by a decision by Commonwealth

Edison of Chicago to build a boiling-water reactor at Dresden, Illinois, independent of government support. Two other utilities in the East had already announced plans to build full-scale nuclear plants as independent

ventures. °° 201

Equally encouraging was the response to the second round. Six of the seven proposals received on February 1, 1956, were from small municipal power systems or cooperatives. There was at least one proposal for each range of capacities set forth in the invitation, and virtually every type of reactor under consideration by the Commission was represented. The response also nicely complemented the first round in terms of geographic distribution.*' The Commission probably could not have done better if it had orchestrated the response itself. Indeed, it would have been remarkable if Strauss, Davis, and others did not steer some proposals into appropriate categories. In the Commission’s laboratories the five-year program was still the focus of attention as the five original experiments were supplemented by one new project at Oak Ridge and two at Los Alamos. Descriptions of the five-year program suggested that the Commission was exploring a remark-

able variety of approaches, each intended to determine the engineering feasibility of a different design. Each was pictured as drawing on existing scientific and technical data and in turn contributing new information for the next generation of experiments or demonstration plants. The five-year program appeared rational and comprehensive, but it lacked focus; it offered no simple, direct, and predictable route to nuclear power.

BUILDING THE REGULATORY STRUCTURE

Strauss could take some satisfaction in the staff’s achievements in developing the administrative and regulatory structure necessary to support and control the new nuclear industry. The task had been far more difficult and time-consuming than most people had expected, but Harold Price had refused to be hurried as he erected the new structure. In the last six months

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

of 1954, after the act had been passed, the task groups under Price’s direction had drafted most new regulations required to govern private ownership of reactors and other facilities using fissionable material. Once the Commissioners had reviewed the drafts, Price arranged to confer with utility

executives, scientists, engineers, and state officials to explain the drafts and gather comments. By summer 1955, Price’s staff had been organized as a new Commission division of civilian application, which prepared new drafts of the regulations. By the end of the year, the Commission had approved most regulations in final form, and they were published for public comment before becoming effective in spring 1956. Even after this long process, Price had to admit to the Commissioners that the new regulations were little more than a beginning. Most of them had to anticipate the workings of a commercial technology that did not yet exist. The work required a delicate balance between protecting the public with effective regulations

252 and giving private industry as much freedom from regulation as possible. Whether a proper balance had been struck could be determined only after industry had had an opportunity to test the new rules.” Creating a new industry also required the wide dissemination of nuclear technology. Under new security regulations the Commission gave engineers from industry clearances to special categories of reactor data after only limited investigation. By late 1955 more than six hundred access permits had been granted to various companies, and more than three thousand security clearances had been processed in the last half of that year. Before the holders of these new limited or “L” clearances could use them, however, the Commission staff had to review thousands of technical documents and laboratory reports to determine which could be placed in the new classified category, which still contained secret restricted data, and which were unclassified. Of the twenty-five thousand reports reviewed by February 1956, more than one-third had been declassified entirely and about onefourth had been downgraded to the “L” category. *?

THE RESEARCH BASE

In pursuit of the peaceful atom, Administration leaders and congressmen

tended to measure success in terms of visible products of technology. Fully aware of this fact, Strauss and his colleagues justified the Commission’s nonmilitary activities with statistics demonstrating technological achievements. But the Commissioners also believed that technical advances usually had their origins in basic knowledge amassed by scientists and research engineers. In his 1945 report, Science, the Endless Frontier, Vannevar Bush had presented the common wisdom growing out of the wartime experience: basic research was like money in a savings account; en-

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

gineers could draw only so much from that investment for practical applications before it was necessary to replenish the account with more basic research. Bush’s argument had been part of the rationale for the Commission’s ambitious research program, which in the 1950s still overshadowed all other federally sponsored research except that in the Department of Defense.**

Sponsoring research, however, was more than an onerous task of keeping the accounts of knowledge and application in balance. The opportunity to foster activities that contributed positively to knowledge, that might even enrich the lives of people everywhere, was to the Commissioners and the staff a welcome relief from the harsh and unrelenting burden of producing more materials and nuclear weapons for the ultimate purpose of destruction. The millions of dollars the Commission lavished on research activities helped to salve the consciences of many who could not forget the potential for human disaster that lurked in the nation’s growing stockpiles 2953 of nuclear weapons. Within the atomic energy establishment, the hope was probably all but universal that somehow the benefits of nuclear technology would eventually dispel the dark cloud of horror and destruction cast

by the bomb. To bring that hope to reality was a strong and uplifting motivation.

Beyond these questions of conscience, there was the sheer delight in discovery, the excitement of exploring new realms of nature revealed by the powerful research tools of nuclear technology. The stunning successes within a single decade in applying scientific data and then adding once more to the store of basic knowledge raised the possibility that the world was on the brink of a new renaissance. For a man like Lewis Strauss, who stood in awe of scientists and their achievements, the chance to participate in and even to contribute to this extraordinary enterprise offered the ultimate in self-fulfillment.*° The Commission’s research base rested on the national laboratories, university-based projects, special development laboratories, and a vast network of research activities performed by hundreds of colleges, universities,

private research institutions, and other government agencies. By the time

Strauss became chairman in 1953, the research base was firmly established. The three large multidisciplinary national laboratories—Brookhaven, Oak Ridge, and Argonne—all had roots in the Manhattan Project. All three were intended to be regional centers where resident scientists and others from nearby universities could work together on nuclear research requiring human resources and equipment beyond the capabilities of a single private institution. Of the three, Brookhaven came closest to realizing the original model of a regional, cooperative research center. Managed by an association sponsored by nine universities in the Northeast, Brookhaven re-

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

flected, more than did Oak Ridge or Argonne, the interests of academic scientists in basic research. The only national laboratory with a large research reactor and a proton synchrotron in the billion-electron-volt range in 1953, Brookhaven could offer scientists a bountiful supply of subnuclear particles, fission products, and radioisotopes for a wide variety of nuclear

research activities in both the physical and the biological sciences. The research reactor completed at Brookhaven in 1950 made the laboratory a natural center for a Commission-wide project to compile a complete set of data on the nuclear characteristics of the many materials used in atomic research and development. The cosmotron, capable of accelerating protons to more than three billion electron volts (GeV), was already producing in 1953 a variety of heavy mesons that gave Brookhaven at least a temporary lead in research in high-energy physics, a field that was capturing the attention of physicists throughout the world.*°

254 Compared with Brookhaven, Oak Ridge National Laboratory had more of an industrial than an academic flavor. Originally built as a pilot plant for plutonium production during World War II, the laboratory had long been managed by an industrial contractor, more recently by the Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation. The Commission’s contract with Union Carbide did not provide for the Brookhaven type of cooperative arrangement with university scientists in the region. Instead, the Commission supported the Oak Ridge Institute of Nuclear Studies, a consortium of twentyfour southern universities, which used laboratory facilities at Oak Ridge for research, training, and education.*’ Well staffed by reactor physicists at the end of the war, the Oak Ridge laboratory had suffered a setback in 1947 when the Commission decided to make Argonne its center for reactor development; but under Alvin M. Weinberg’s skillful leadership, Oak Ridge won from the Commission a series of assignments to study some of the more exotic reactor concepts. The laboratory was also the home of the aircraft nuclear propulsion project, supported by the Commission and the Air Force. The laboratory’s principal research tools in the 1950s were the research reactor built during the war and an eighty-six-inch cyclotron. The reactor was the only one of its kind in the United States until the Brookhaven facility was completed.

In addition to providing irradiation space and radioactive products for physical and biological experiments, the Oak Ridge reactor produced more than a dozen radioisotopes for distribution to industrial and research users. The reactor, the cyclotron, and other facilities at Oak Ridge made the laboratory a world center for the production and distribution of stable and radioactive isotopes. During the lean years in the 1950s when the Commis-

sion had little to boast about in advancing the peaceful uses of atomic energy, descriptions of the isotope distribution program filled Commission reports and press releases. *®

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

Although the Commission in 1947 intended Argonne to be a regional research center accessible to universities in the area, the laboratory never

achieved the degree of academic participation enjoyed by scientists at Brookhaven. Walter H. Zinn, the laboratory director, had himself been an academic physicist and appreciated the need for strong programs in basic research at Argonne. In fact, the laboratory under his direction pursued important areas of applied research in metallurgy, radiation chemistry, nuclear physics, and the biological effects of radiation. Zinn, however, felt even more keenly pressures from the Commission to develop nuclear power

and meet defense requirements. Thus, Argonne had initiated some research on naval propulsion reactors for Rickover, had built the first breeder reactor, had completed design studies for the plutonium production reactors at Savannah River, and had developed the boiling-water reactor, which was fast becoming a credible approach to nuclear power. The facilities

required for all these projects, and especially the experimental reactors 250 built by the laboratory at Argonne and the Idaho test station, prompted the Commission by 1956 to pour more capital investment into Argonne than into the other two multipurpose laboratories. *”

Important as these achievements were, they came at the cost of strong dissatisfaction among scientists in the thirty-two universities and research institutions in the Midwest that, on paper at least, were to have a voice in setting research priorities at Argonne. Zinn gave little more than lip-service to the board of governors, who represented the participating institutions, and proceeded as if all program decisions were to be made by the University of Chicago as the Commission’s operating contractor at Argonne. By early 1948 the board of governors had abandoned all pretense of exercising any real influence over the laboratory’s research program, and the Commission’s revision of the laboratory’s charter in June 1950 replaced

the board with a powerless advisory body. The new charter suggested that the Brookhaven model of a cooperative regional laboratory was not to be duplicated at Argonne.”

While Zinn struggled for independence at Argonne, Ernest O. Lawrence already enjoyed a free rein at the University of California Radiation Laboratory in Berkeley. Lawrence had founded the laboratory before World War II with private and state funds and had made it a world center for research in high-energy physics before the Manhattan Project was created. Without hesitation Lawrence had thrown all his influence and all the laboratory resources into the war effort. He was thus in a strong position after the war to assure Berkeley its full share of federal funding for research

without accepting either the designation of a “national laboratory” or a formal commitment to provide a research center for other universities on the West Coast.

Although the Radiation Laboratory conducted nuclear research in

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

many areas of the physical and biological sciences, it primarily focused on high-energy physics centered on the bevatron and other accelerators, transuranium chemistry and the creation of transplutonium elements under

Glenn T. Seaborg, and weapon research at Livermore. By 1956, the combined work force of more than four thousand people at Berkeley and Livermore made the Radiation Laboratory the largest of all the Commission’s research facilities.*! Among the Commission’s single-purpose research installations, the

largest by far in 1956 was the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, also operated by the University of California. Virtually all the research and development at Los Alamos before 1956 was related to nuclear weapons, but the laboratory did perform basic research, for example on the physical, chemical, and metallurgical properties of materials used in weapons. Much basic research at Los Alamos was similar to that funded at other Commission

256 laboratories, except that the work at Los Alamos was usually weaponrelated and hence classified. Deeply concerned in 1954 that younger scientists would ultimately see little future in a laboratory devoted entirely to weapon research, Norris EK. Bradbury, the director, urged Strauss to broaden the laboratory’s charter. As a result, Los Alamos began investigating a very advanced concept for a power reactor in 1956 and, like Livermore and Oak Ridge, entered the new field of research on controlled thermonuclear reactions. At that time Los Alamos had the largest operating budget (more than $47 million) of any Commission laboratory and employed 3,300 persons. Comparable in size to Los Alamos were the two naval reactor laboratories: the Bettis Plant operated by Westinghouse near Pittsburgh and the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory operated by General Electric near Schenectady.” Other single-purpose laboratories were smaller than those already mentioned, but they still performed vital research functions for the Commission. The Sandia Laboratory in Albuquerque and the Mound Laboratory in Miamisburg, Ohio, had essential roles in weapon development and production. The Raw Materials Development Laboratory at Winchester, Massachusetts, and the Ames Laboratory at Iowa State College helped to im-

prove processes for refining uranium ore and reducing it to metal. The Commission also supported medical and biological research using nuclear materials and equipment at the Universities of Chicago and Rochester and the University of California at Los Angeles and San Francisco. In all its laboratories in 1956 the Commission spent more than $51 million for research in chemistry, metallurgy, and physics and more than $30 million for

research on cancer, medicine, and biology. During that same year, the Commission committed almost $19 million for more than eight hundred offsite research contracts, which included nearly every major research organization, college, and university in the country.”

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

HIGH-ENERGY PHYSICS

This unprecedented commitment to scientific research was expected to contribute in hundreds of untold ways to the increase in human knowledge and the beneficial application of nuclear technology. By its very nature, however, research produced small increments of data, most of which could not be appreciated by the news media or the general public. To justify the value of research for the Administration’s Atoms-for-Peace program, the Commis-

sion had to rely on a few projects that seemed to push the frontiers of science into exotic realms that somehow captured the imagination of nonscientists. Ernest Lawrence had learned in the 1930s that probes into the submicroscopic world of the atomic nucleus with the cyclotron elicited that kind of response. The discovery of the synchrotron principle during World War II had sparked new enthusiasm for high-energy physics after the war, and it became the research area in basic physics most generously supported 257

by the federal government. Two products of that enthusiasm were the Brookhaven cosmotron and the Berkeley bevatron, which was expected to achieve proton energies above 6 GeV when the accelerator came into operation in 1954.“ Even before the bevatron was completed, physicists were looking for ways to reach even higher energies, which seemed necessary for fully exploiting the research possibilities already revealed by the cosmotron. Both the cosmotron and the bevatron, however, were approaching the maximum practical size of a synchrotron. Higher energies appeared to require that particles be accelerated over much greater distances than ever before. That

meant that the vacuum-tight annular or “racetrack,” through which the particles would move, would have to be considerably larger than those used at Brookhaven and Berkeley. As the radius of the racetrack was increased

much beyond thirty feet, the cost of the steel and control equipment required for the magnets that focused the proton beam on its circular course became almost prohibitively large. Also, as the diameter of the racetrack increased, the volume of the doughnut-shaped race course to be evacuated with vacuum pumps became enormous. In searching for a new approach to synchrotron design that would

overcome these limitations, physicists at Brookhaven in summer 1952 investigated a design principle suggested by scientists at the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN). The new idea was called alternating gradient, or strong focusing. Instead of flat, parallel pole faces on the focusing magnets, the European scientists proposed a curved surface. It had long been known that nonparallel or curved pole faces would cause varia-

tions in the magnetic field at different points in the cross section of the beam, but only relatively small variations or “shims” had been used. The scientists found that by introducing a relatively large variation or gradient

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

and then alternating the orientation of successive magnets around the race-

track, a focusing and defocusing effect was produced that sharply compressed the beam’s cross section. A sharper beam meant that the aperture of a syncnrotron could be reduced from a width of about 30 inches in the cosmotron to about 1.5 inches in a machine using strong focusing. The implications of strong focusing for accelerator design were dramatic. The smaller aperture made possible much smaller magnets and volumes; hence the diameter of the racetrack could be increased, and much higher energies, perhaps as high as 100 GeV, now seemed possible. Strong focusing could also be used in Van de Graafs and linear accelerators, which served as particle generators and injectors for the large machines.”

The advantages of strong focusing, apparent to physicists, were likely to mean little to most government officials. It so happened, however,

that the first studies of strong focusing in summer 1952 were an inter258 national venture involving both European and American physicists. Fully appreciating the advantages of strong focusing, the European group made plans to use it in a cooperative effort to build a 30-GeV proton synchroton in Switzerland. Although scientists at Brookhaven saw strong focusing primarily as an opportunity for new research in high-energy physics, the Europeans’ plans raised for Commission officials the specter of lost American preeminence in a preeminent field of science. The Commission proposal to build an alternating-gradient synchrotron at Brookhaven with a power

of 25 to 35 GeV noted that “American scientists have held the lead in nuclear science since the invention of the cyclotron and they do not now wish to fall behind.” Thus, the pace of American development in highenergy physics had become a measure of success in the Atoms-for-Peace program.” The Commission’s prompt decision to fund the Brookhaven accelerator, however, did not meet the expectations of many American physicists, particularly in the Midwest. With the cosmotron and bevatron in operation by 1954 and the first of a new generation of accelerators already approved for Brookhaven, scientists in the Midwest still had no prospects for an accelerator in the GeV range. Argonne was the logical location for such a machine. In January 1954, within weeks after Commission approval of the Brookhaven project, Zinn proposed to meet the growing demand for a large Midwest accelerator by building it at Argonne in cooperation with university physicists in the region. Reluctant at first to risk dilution of Argonne’s work on reactors or to request additional funds from the tight-fisted Bureau of the Budget, the Commission in June 1954 approved a design study at Argonne, mainly to forestall attempts by the Midwest Universities Research Association to obtain federal funds for an accelerator project independent of Argonne. The core of the new association consisted of physicists who had been frustrated for years in trying to extract from Zinn and the Commission some role in establishing research priorities at Argonne. The depth

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

of the scientists’ disaffection with Zinn’s high-handed methods became apparent in October 1954, when the association summarily rejected Zinn’s offer to set up a separate accelerator division at Argonne and to give the Midwest group a voice in selecting the division director, who would have complete technical but not administrative control of the accelerator project. Drawing from experience, members of the association did not trust Zinn,

and he looked upon the rejection of his proposal as another example of their unreasonable expectations.“ The uncompromising stance taken by both sides in autumn 1954 stalled for almost a year all attempts at settling the dispute. In the meantime scientists were publishing exciting results of experiments conducted with the cosmotron and bevatron. Most significant had been the discovery of the antiproton, which had been produced with high-energy protons in the bevatron and identified by Owen Chamberlin, Emilio Segre, and others

at Berkeley with the recently developed liquid-hydrogen bubble chamber. 259 With frustration and impatience growing on both sides in the Midwest, Lawrence A. Kimpton, chancellor of the University of Chicago, offered a compromise proposal, in which the university as the Argonne contractor offered significant concessions: namely, something similar to the Oak Ridge Institute of Nuclear Studies be established to design and build an accelera-

tor at Argonne as an independent Commission contractor. The Midwest scientists welcomed the idea, but Kimpton had mistakenly assumed that he could convince Zinn to accept the compromise. Zinn instantly rejected it and submitted his resignation, to be effective within three weeks; only with difficulty did Strauss persuade Zinn to delay. The Commission now faced a quandary. On the one hand, the Commissioners did not want to lose Zinn

or threaten the future ot Argonne; they did not want to abandon the idea that Argonne was to become a regional multipurpose laboratory; and they also knew that it would be hard to obtain funds for two laboratories. On the other hand, the Commission knew that if Zinn stayed, the Midwest group would never agree to work within Argonne. Pressure from the Commission would free the group to seek an independent laboratory at another site. If the Commission refused to cooperate, the Midwest group might well seek

funding from the Department of Defense and thus threaten the Commission’s hegemony over basic research in the Midwest.* A compromise solution emerged early in November 1955 with help from the general advisory committee: the Commission proposed to fund two

accelerator projects but only one laboratory. Argonne was to be asked to build a 12-GeV scale-up of the bevatron, a machine that presumably would involve more engineering than high-powered physics and could be completed before the Soviet Union could operate a machine somewhat larger than the bevatron. Thus, Argonne could maintain the United States’ lead in high-energy physics until the new Brookhaven accelerator took the lead in the world contest. The Midwest group would be offered funds to design

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

a truly advanced accelerator, to be built a year later at an unspecified site. Privately the Commission hoped that, by the time site selection became an issue, new faces might be on the scene and the Midwest accelerator might be built at Argonne.” The Commission’s compromise was acceptable to the Midwest group but not to Zinn, who insisted that Argonne was not staffed to build the 12GeV machine and that in any case it could not be completed before the Brookhaven alternating-gradient accelerator. Instead, Zinn held out for an accelerator that would advance the state of the art. When the Commission formally assigned the 12-GeV project to Argonne, Zinn resigned.” The turmoil that the Commission and Zinn experienced during his last two years at Argonne revealed the complex pattern of decision making in federal support of scientific research. It was by no means unusual that the quality of proposals and the ability of the scientists involved were not

260 the only factors in determining which projects were accepted and which rejected. Regional interests, politics, budget limitations, bureaucratic competition, existing policy, and personality conflicts all played a part. In this

kind of debate, it seemed inevitable that the appeal to national interest and even to national security should be involved. It was no accident that the solution to the Commission’s dilemma should rest in part upon the argument that high-energy physics offered a significant battlefield in the Cold War.

ENERGY FROM THE STARS

Secretly the Commission was supporting research that would challenge the United States’ competitors in another race for nuclear power—harnessing the power of the hydrogen bomb for peaceful purposes. Since 1951, even before a workable thermonuclear weapon had been designed, the Commission had been supporting secret research on controlled thermonuclear re-

actions. In March of that year Lyman Spitzer, Jr., an astrophysicist at Princeton University, had begun to consider how he might design a reactor that would contain an ionized gas or “plasma” of hydrogen isotopes, which might be fused to release the enormous energy associated with the thermonuclear reactions that powered the sun and the stars. In order to fuse the hydrogen nuclei, the temperature of the plasma would have to be raised to one hundred million degrees, hotter than the interior of the sun and many times any temperature ever achieved in the laboratory. Because no material

vessel could contain such a plasma, other methods of confining the gas would be required. Experiments with ionized gases in previous decades suggested that confinement might be accomplished with strong magnetic fields, and within a few weeks Spitzer conceived of a simple confinement system that would use an external magnetic field to confine the plasma

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

within a vacuum chamber shaped like a doughnut twisted into a figureeight. In summer 1951 the Commission funded Spitzer with $50,000 for a paper study of his idea.*! Spitzer’s interest in fusion energy stemmed from the theoretical work that he was undertaking with John A. Wheeler on the design of a hydrogen bomb. Likewise, scientists at Los Alamos and Livermore saw fusion energy development as an offshoot of the thermonuclear research that they were

already pursuing, and both laboratories staked out claims for other theoretically obvious but completely untested systems for magnetic confinement in 1952. Spitzer called his device the “stellarator,” an optimistic reference to the stars as fusion energy systems. The Los Alamos approach was called the “pinch” and the Livermore concept the “magnetic mirror.” By summer

1953, when Strauss became chairman, the Commission had spent about one million dollars on fusion energy research: 50 percent of it at Princeton,

30 percent at Berkeley and Livermore, and 20 percent at Los Alamos. 261 Thirty scientists in the four laboratories were devoting part of their time to these projects, and the pace was unhurried and relaxed.” When Strauss became chairman, he moved at once to enlarge and

accelerate fusion research. Both Teller and Lawrence, whose opinions Strauss considered virtually unchallengeable, believed that the work deserved high priority. Strauss saw it as a priceless opportunity for the Atomsfor-Peace program and a telling refutation of the claims of fainted-hearted scientists like Oppenheimer, who, Strauss contended, had seen no redeem-

ing or beneficial value in thermonuclear research back in 1949. What greater success could the Administration contemplate than to present the world with a new, clean, and limitless source of power while other nations were still striving to perfect the fission reactor? Fusion offered a “quantum jump” over fission reactors similar to that which the hydrogen bomb held over atomic weapons of the Hiroshima type.” Under Strauss’s leadership the Commission launched Project Sherwood and directed the staff to seek proposals from the laboratories for actual experimental devices, not mere paper studies, that would serve either as testing equipment or as prototypes for fusion reactors. Under pressure from Washington, Spitzer by June 1954 produced a plan for a full-scale operating stellarator even before bench-top experiments or a small-scale prototype could be completed. By summer 1955 the number of scientists

engaged in fusion research had risen to one hundred full-time workers. Operating costs had reached almost $5 million annually. There was no shortage of enthusiasm for Project Sherwood in the chairman’s office and no lack of funds in the laboratories. In fact, as one scientist remarked, “one gets the feeling in visiting the various sites that the number of dollars available per good idea is rather uncomfortably large.” ™ With his almost naive faith in the power of science, Strauss seemed to believe that with sufficient money and effort almost any technical goal,

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

including controlled fusion, could be attained. But the fact was that in autumn 1955 scientists had not yet begun to understand the complex phenomena that would influence the behavior of plasma in a fusion reactor. By giving Project Sherwood a high priority, Strauss did raise morale among the scientists and put more of them to work, but the generous flow of funds from the Commission also had unfavorable effects. More money meant more reliance on cut-and-try methods of engineering design at the expense of systematic theoretical studies that were already in short supply. Big budgets

also encouraged scientists to explore every idea that might conceivably work as long as money was available. And as the fusion projects in each laboratory grew in size and numbers of scientists, overhead increased and institutional requirements gained more importance. Strauss had also handicapped the scientists by tightening the secu-

rity restrictions on their work. In 1951 and 1952, when the first studies 262 seemed closely related to weapon research, even the existence of the projects was classified secret; but many data on basic physics had been assigned to the confidential category, which permitted all scientists within the

project to share the results of the several laboratories. Under Strauss the secret classification was imposed on all data and information compartmentalized in each laboratory despite appeals for declassification from both the scientists and the Commission staff. Not until the British and others described some of their work on controlled fusion research at the Geneva conference did Strauss agree to reveal the existence of Project Sherwood. Strauss had put more fuel in the research furnace, but he had closed the damper at the same time.”

RADIATION AND LIFE

No Commission activity held greater promise for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy than did research in biology and medicine. Long before the discovery of nuclear fission, scientists had foreseen the possibility of using radiation in the treatment of disease, particularly cancer. Strauss himself had first acquired an interest in the nuclear sciences in the 1930s when he learned that the cyclotron, which Lawrence was developing at Berkeley, might be used in treating cancer, which had killed both of Strauss’s par-

ents. In the years after World War II, scientists and physicians in the national laboratories, universities, and other private research institutions clamored for various radiation sources to be used in biomedical experiments. Not only high-energy particles from accelerators were available but also a cornucopia of fission products and radioisotopes providing a wide variety of radiation characteristics. The Commission became the generous provider of these materials.” From the outset the Commission allocated a significant portion of its

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

funds for biology and medicine to cancer research. By 1955 the Commission was spending more than $2 million a year on cancer research and the distribution of radioisotopes for cancer therapy. The national laboratories took the lead in developing teletherapy units and radiation sources and finding new applications for radioisotopes. The Argonne Cancer Research Hospital, operated for the Commission by the University of Chicago, used both radioisotopes and high-energy radiation in investigating therapeutic applications and developing clinical techniques. Both national laboratories and university contractors used isotopes in a wide range of studies of biological systems, from studying antibody synthesis in blood proteins to measuring the effectiveness of drugs.” One of the most exciting areas of biomedical research opened by the plentiful supply of radioisotopes was their use in tracer studies. Scientists found that they could introduce radioisotopes into biological systems without disrupting existing life processes and then use the radioactivity emitted 263 to trace specific chemical compounds through the system. In physiology, tracers were used to study the rate of distribution of common elements in the body; in cytology, to study the turnover of biochemical compounds in living cells; in metabolic studies, to measure protein synthesis with carbon14-labeled amino acids. Tracers were also used in various studies to measure the uptake and distribution of nutrients and other chemicals. In devising new uses for radiation sources, scientists also had to give greater attention to radiation effects. For along with the therapeutic and diagnostic powers of radiation came many unknown effects on biological

systems. From the earliest days of the Manhattan Project, the study of radiation effects was closely tied to industrial safety in nuclear technology. After World War Il, studies were broadened beyond specific problems to include basic research on the biological effects of all kinds of high-energy radiation and scores of radioisotopes. In the early 1950s many animal studies were concerned with the gross effects of whole-body irradiation; in plant research scientists at Brookhaven and elsewhere measured the effects of exposing commercial plants to gamma radiation during the growing cycle. After the Upshot-Knothole and Castle weapon test series in 1953 and 1954, research on radiation effects began to focus on phenomena directly

related to the biological effects of radioactive fallout. In addition to research on whole-body effects of external radiation, scientists began giving greater attention to the metabolism and toxicity of radioisotopes entering the body, particularly the most health-threatening products of weapon testing: strontium-90, cesium-137, and iodine-131. Animal experiments were conducted to measure the effects of radiation on blood platelets, blood clotting, and embryos as well as the effects on life expectancy and productivity. In plant studies biologists followed radionuclides from fallout through dispersion in the soil to uptake by plants and then to ingestion by animals and humans. In addition to these studies of somatic effects, the Commission

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

also funded genetic studies in an attempt to relate radiation exposure to mutations in germ cells. The Commission continued to support, through the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, studies of the only large human population exposed to heavy amounts of radiation—the survivors and offspring

of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The long generation span in humans, plus inevitable complexities in keeping track of large groups of individuals, made the studies in Japan difficult at best. To avoid some of these problems, the Commission funded genetic studies with mice, principally at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and with fruitflies at several universities. * During the mid-1950s the Commission’s budget for biomedical re-

search hovered around $25 million per year. About 37 percent of this amount went to studies of radiation effects; 34 percent to investigating beneficial effects of radiation; 21 percent to research related to industrial health and safety; and 8 percent to experiments on combatting the detri264 mental effects of radiation.®’ Most of this research was fundamental enough to attract the interest of scientists in research institutions, many completely outside the context of nuclear technology. Basic knowledge generated under research contracts could then be used by scientists in the Commission’s laboratories in studies directly related to Commission programs. Before 1955 many of these studies concerning the radiation effects of nuclear weapons were classified. Thus, as public concern over fallout hazards in-

creased after 1954, it became difficult to evaluate the adequacy of the Commission’s response. Critics could point to only nominal growth in the Commission’s biomedical budget during the mid-1950s and to the fact that almost no funds were specifically earmarked for studies of the radiation effects of fallout. The Commission, however, could with some justification claim that the tens of millions of dollars dedicated to basic research represented an effective and significant response to the fallout problem. It was

also true after 1954 that much fallout research related to testing was charged to the budgets for weapons.

GABRIEL AND SUNSHINE

Even more difficult for the public to appraise were the Commission’s efforts to understand the larger implication of nuclear weapon testing and nuclear warfare. Obviously, estimates of the biological effects of fallout on large

human populations were more likely to arouse fear and controversy than were small-scale experiments on laboratory animals. Thus, it was not surprising that initial studies of large-scale effects were highly classified and unknown to the public. The Commission’s division of biology and medicine

first sponsored a macrostudy in 1949, when one physicist at Oak Ridge undertook a theoretical calculation of the number of nuclear weapon explo-

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

sions that would produce a significant radiological hazard. Revising his initial estimates in 195] after the Ranger and Greenhouse test series, the scientist concluded that it would require the detonation of one hundred thousand weapons of the Nagasaki type to reach the “doomsday” level.° The likelihood of such an occurrence seemed so remote at the time that the Commission’s biology and medicine staff could lightly give the study the code name Project Gabriel.

The 1951 weapon tests and quick estimates by the headquarters staff, however, indicated that the short-term, close-in effects of a nuclear detonation could have serious consequences for a densely populated area. At the request of the general advisory committee, the Commission supplemented occasional staff work and laboratory studies on Project Gabriel with

a Rand Corporation contract in 1952 to make a systematic analysis of the : “intensive, short-time hazard to residents of areas relatively close to points

under attack with near-surface bursts or air-bursts in rainy weather.” At 265 that time the division of biology and medicine could find no contractor capable of undertaking a study of the long-term, widespread hazard.” Within weeks after the conclusion of the Upshot-Knothole tests, which dumped significant amounts of fallout in localities beyond the Nevada test site, Willard F. Libby, then professor at the University of Chicago and a member of the general advisory committee, called a classified conference of Rand personnel, scientists from the Commission’s laboratories, and military representatives in Santa Monica, California. Libby noted that

Rand had divided Project Gabriel into two distinct studies: the first directed at short-term, close-in consequences; and the second at long-term, distant ; implications. The first study, Libby admitted, had to remain secret because .

the revelation of data gathered within the first few days of a weapon test would reveal classified information about weapon design. The study of long-

term effects, however, could be unclassified, and Libby argued that gathering fallout data on a national and perhaps a worldwide scale could best 5 be done in the open. Long-term studies were essential, Libby believed, because growth of the stockpile and recent Nevada tests made clear as never before that strontium-90 could pose a serious radiological hazard for the public. In the original Gabriel studies the principal concern had been the

potential toxicity of plutonium disbursed as particles in the radioactive cloud. But since 1950 scientists had become more concerned about the possible effects of strontium-90, which behaved much like calcium in plant and animal chemistry; hence it tended to concentrate in the bone, where, with its twenty-eight year half-life, it could cause bone cancer. Later Gabriel studies had used strontium-90 as the critical factor in determining the number of weapon detonations that constituted a radiological hazard. Not until the Upshot-Knothole tests in 1953, however, was it evident that stron-

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

tium could be widely distributed over the northern hemisphere, not only by nuclear war but also by fallout from testing. Knowing that all previous work on Gabriel had been secret or top secret, Libby faced a skeptical audience in arguing for an unclassified survey. Commission officials attending the conference found Libby’s ideas

“stimulating” but not very practical. To single out strontium for special attention in an unclassified study might easily arouse undue public alarm, while the cost and complexity of a worldwide sampling project seemed too ambitious to undertake without further study. Libby was encouraged to begin limited sampling and analytical work in his Chicago laboratory, but no extensive project could be authorized until more data had been gathered. In the meantime Project Gabriel remained classified. Although the Commission did not move as far or as fast as Libby recommended, a substantial effort had been organized by autumn 1953.

266 In addition to Rand’s theoretical studies, scientists from the University of California at Los Angeles were continuing to study soils, plants, and small animals collected within a few hundred miles of the test site. Data were available from the fallout monitoring network of more than one hundred stations established for Upshot-Knothole. Libby and other scientists were already analyzing the strontium content of materials collected from widely

scattered locations. Possibly to suggest that strontium-90 could be as widely distributed over the earth’s surface as solar energy, Libby and his colleagues began referring to their work as Project Sunshine, a name that unfortunately implied in later years an attempt to put a “sunny” connotation

on a somber and frightening subject. By the end of 1953 the Commission was supporting Project Sunshine at a level of fifteen man-years and $140,000 per year. The division of biology and medicine estimated that it was also funding basic research related to Project Gabriel in about seventy projects costing $3.3 million per year. Although most basic research was unclassified, Sunshine and Gabriel were still considered secret.

THE MULLER FIASCO

The Geneva Conference in summer 1955 offered a potential opportunity for openly discussing the radiation effects of fallout. The purpose of the conference, after all, was to afford scientists from many nations an occasion to exchange information and ideas on the peaceful uses of atomic energy. A preliminary agenda drafted in November 1954 included eleven papers on

“medical and biological applications”: six on the use of tracers, one on radiation use in medicine, two on its use in plant physiology and morphology, and one on its genetic effects. It was all but inevitable that any session on the genetic effects of

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

radiation would include a paper by Hermann J. Muller, who had won the Nobel Prize in 1946 for his work on this subject. First developing an interest In genetics as an undergraduate at Columbia University in 1909, Muller had embarked on a productive career as a teacher and researcher at universities and research institutes in Texas, the Soviet Union, and Scotland before going to Indiana University in 1945. Muller had startled the scientific world in 1927 with a paper describing experiments that proved it was possible to use radiation to induce mutations in genes. Always sensitive to the social and practical implications of his research, Muller never ceased before World War II to warn physicians of the genetic hazards of X-rays, although he believed that their therapeutic and diagnostic value was worth the risk if proper precautions were taken in using them. After the war Muller noted in several articles the potential genetic hazards posed by the atomic age, but his views did not attract widespread

attention until April 1955, when he delivered a lecture at the National 267 Academy of Sciences in Washington on “The Genetic Damage Produced by Radiation.” The lecture caused alarm in government circles because it explicitly related genetic damage to nuclear testing and nuclear warfare and

because Muller had already given a copy to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists for publication.” Despite its bald title, Muller’s paper must have seemed surprisingly moderate and judicious, especially to those who did not know his earlier

publications. Muller challenged both those who discounted any genetic damage among the descendent populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and those who called, as he put it, “loudly, and in some cases in a suspiciously vitriolic tone, for an end to all nuclear test explosions, on the ground that

even the tests are already seriously undermining the genetic basis of all mankind.” Radiation, Muller admitted, did cause genetic damage, but he demonstrated that the potential effects of nuclear testing were exceedingly small and probably could never be traced to individuals. Much as he had done in warning physicians about X-rays, he urged great care to minimize radiation exposure from nuclear testing, but he took an unequivocal position that the national security requirements for nuclear weapons far outweighed the potential genetic damage of testing. Nuclear war would be a

disaster, both genetically and otherwise, but nuclear testing seemed to Muller the best way to avoid it.

If Muller’s lecture on the genetic effects of radiation upset some government officials, it did not seem to bother American scientists, both inside and outside the Commission, who were planning the Geneva conference. The Commission staff sent an abstract of Muller’s paper to the United

Nations early in May 1955, and the paper was promptly accepted for presentation at the conference. On June 6 the Commission’s staff recommended that Muller be invited to the conference as a technical adviser

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

to the American delegation. On that same day, however, perhaps as a result of the staff’s action, steps were taken within the Commission to remove Muller from the invitation list. Cireumstantial evidence suggests that Strauss made this decision on security grounds after talking with Bryan LaPlante and Charles Bates, the FBI liaison officer. The problem was that Muller’s FBI file bulged with derogatory data. He had been an active socialist during his youth in New York City. During the Depression of the 1930s he had openly espoused communism as the hope of the future. He probably had not ever been a member of the American Communist party, but he had been active in organizations sympathetic to the communist cause. He had spent almost four years at the Institute of Genetics in Moscow, had many Soviet friends, and had come home from Europe, according to FBI reports, with bundles of communist propaganda. The facts that Muller after World War II had bitterly attacked communism

268 and the genetic theories of Lysenko and that he advocated continued nuclear testing as a necessary defense against Soviet aggression were perhaps discounted simply as a cover for his communist sympathies. As a result,

the Commission asked the United Nations not to accept Muller’s paper for oral presentation, although it was to be printed in the conference proceedings. ©

Muller, who was already in Europe on vacation with his family and counting on the invitation to pay for his own travel expenses, could hardly have welcomed the rejection, but he did not openly object. He did, how-

ever, attend the conference at his own expense and sat silently as he received a standing ovation from the scientists attending the session at which he was to have presented his paper. The incident did not have reverberations beyond scientific circles until a month later, when a Washington Post reporter called the Commission staff about the incident. A Commission

press statement released the next day explained that Muller’s invitation had been rejected because the full text of his paper “was belatedly found to contain material referring to the nonpeaceful uses of atomic energy, namely, the bombing of the Japanese city of Hiroshima.” ©

This transparent explanation at once raised an outcry of protest among American scientists, some of whom demanded an investigation by the National Academy of Sciences. Strauss attempted to defuse the protest by claiming personal responsibility for rejecting the paper when he did not read it carefully under the press of business. The public impression, however, was that the Commission was attempting to suppress any discussion of the potential genetic effects of testing, no matter how balanced such an account might be.”° The truth was that a reappearance of the Oppenheimer security syndrome supplied the compelling reason for rejecting Muller’s presentation. The fact, however, that Strauss apparently acted within days after Muller’s academy lecture appeared in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists suggested that the popular conception was in part correct. The net

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

result, as in previous instances, was further to destroy the Commission’s credibility on matters relating to the radiation effects of fallout.

THE BALANCE SHEET

In the year following the adoption of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 Strauss and other Administration leaders enjoyed some success in promoting the peaceful uses of atomic energy. Most prominent on the Commission’s list of

achievements was the impressive array of activities to develop nuclear power for commercial purposes. The five-year reactor program in the Commission laboratories, augmented by the first two invitations to industry in the demonstration program, at least gave the appearance of a concerted effort to develop a new energy source. Even more remote, but perhaps of

even greater ultimate promise than power from fission reactors, were the 269 Commission’s programs to harness fusion energy and to probe the mysteries

of the atomic nucleus with high-energy accelerators. Of more immediate and direct benefit to society were the results of Commission-sponsored research in biology and medicine; the growing use of radioisotopes in both clinical therapy and diagnosis was already producing dramatic results in treating cancer and other diseases. The Commission effectively presented all these benefits and achievements of nuclear technology, both in technical

papers and exhibits, at the peaceful uses conference in Geneva in 1955; and the Commission hoped that they would be reflected in the report of the McKinney panel in early 1956. Along with the benefits and accomplishments, however, came un-

expected difficulties, disappointments, and public skepticism. For all Strauss’s claims for the demonstration program, a practical nuclear power plant still seemed a long way in the future, and the American effort seemed to be lagging behind the British and the Russian. Strauss had yet to defuse growing Congressional demands for a massive government program, and the bitter, seemingly endless controversy over Dixon-Yates threatened permanently to politicize the nuclear power program. For the moment the United States appeared to have the lead in the international race for fusion

energy and in high-energy physics, but research in neither area as yet seemed to have any important applications in nuclear technology. In the biomedical sciences, where the results of Commission sponsorship had been most impressive, impending consequences were also the most sobering. The very technologies that brought enormous benefits to human welfare also revealed previously unknown and unpredicted hazards. Commission-sponsored studies following the Upshot-Knothole weapon tests in 1953 showed conclusively that the radiation hazards from fallout could be continental or worldwide. Research was revealing new and potentially serious hazards from internal emitters like strontium-90 and iodine-131

PURSUIT OF THE PEACEFUL ATOM

entering the human body through the food chain. Ironically, the ability to detect and measure such hazards came from research that had strikingly advanced knowledge of biochemistry in plants and animals. And just below the surface of public consciousness was the question of genetic effects, a subject politically so sensitive that even a world-renowned scientist could not approach it with impunity. Atomic energy did have peaceful applications; the question now was whether the accompanying disadvantages made it worth the effort.

270

CHAPTER 10

THE SEEDS OF ANXIETY

From Bikini the remnants of the gigantic cloud generated by the Bravo shot spread eastward, first over Rongelap, then on to Utirik and beyond, where white ashes fell like snow on the deck of the Lucky Dragon. A few hours

earlier the same “snowfall” had silently descended on the unsuspecting islanders. Many of them suffered the skin lesions and discoloration and loss of hair that scientists had come to identify with radiation exposure at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For the crew of the Lucky Dragon, the name of their vessel belied its fate. The fishermen already bore evidence of substan-

tial radiation exposure when their ship reached port. As time passed, the superficial scars of radiation damage disappeared, and most of the crew could return home. But not radioman Aikichu Kuboyama, who languished without appetite or spirit week after week. By the time Kuboyama died in late September, the Japanese had their own name for fallout. They called it shi no hai—“ashes of death.” ! The introduction to the nuclear age experienced by the Marshallese and the Japanese fishermen represented an extreme but highly localized example of the anxieties many people around the world would feel during the 1950s as they groped their way toward understanding nuclear weapons and their implications. For many Americans the stunning success of the atomic bomb in bringing a quick and merciful end to World War II engulfed

concerns about the human toll in death and affliction. But the seeds of anxiety took root at Upshot-Knothole and began to flourish after Bravo. Scientists began to reexamine their earlier assumptions about the nature and significance of fallout and began gathering new data. Public officials, from Commission employees at the Nevada Test Site to the President in the White House, struggled to interpret the bloodless facts streaming in from

the laboratories in technical reports and briefings. Politicians looked for

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

ways to capitalize on the issues raised by fallout and testing while the public struggled to relate the controversy and growing anxiety to everyday life.

EVALUATING BRAVO

Following a visit to the South Pacific test site and a briefing on the Bravo shot, Congressman Chet Holifield felt compelled to convey his deep concern to the President. “I believe it is imperative,” he wrote Eisenhower in March 1954, “that the people know the effect of these weapons in order that they may be able to more realistically evaluate the gravity of international tensions and the necessity of making the financial sacrifices necessary to protect our free way of life.” Holifield’s call for “plain words” rather

272 than generalities or confusing scientific explanations arose from his assumption that the American people were “mature enough to accept an authoritative statement of the facts without panic or hysteria.” He believed that the facts about the hydrogen bomb would lead to a “surging and irresistible demand for peace.” ? The facts about the hydrogen bomb, however, were not that easy to relate. Security considerations aside, it was not just a problem of collecting and analyzing fallout data. The Castle test series had upset fundamental assumptions about strategy and civil defense, a basic fact that took some time to sink in. Just a few months before, in January, John Foster Dulles had given his “massive retaliation” speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. Revised and qualified in the spring issue of Foreign Affairs, Dulles had outlined the basic defense policy expressed in NSC 162/2, which had formulated the “new look.” Although not involved in developing the “new look,” Dulles summarized the Administration’s policy of relying upon rapid and overwhelming nuclear retaliation to deter or counter Soviet aggression against either the United States or its allies. Emphasizing collective security, the “new look,” with its reliance on strategic thermonuclear weapons, was intended to meet the Soviet threat without seriously burdening the American economy. Yet the ink was scarcely dry on Dulles’s Foreign Affairs article when the Administration faced nuclear tragedy in the Pacific without knowing exactly the consequences of the Castle-Bravo data.°

At his White House news conference on March 31, 1954, Strauss acknowledged the radiation injuries suffered by servicemen, the Marshallese, and the Lucky Dragon crew, but under questioning from reporters he also stated that the H-bomb could “take out a city” the size of New York. The fact that a nuclear bomb could wipe out a city, of course, was not new. Nevertheless, the New York Times understandably featured Strauss’s devastating remarks and virtually ignored the fallout question. The fact that a

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

thermonuclear bomb dropped on Washington might ravage the entire northeastern seaboard with radiation was still secret information.‘ Meanwhile, on March 27, Eisenhower had set in motion the establishment of a special Technological Capabilities Panel to study the dangers of surprise attack. Although the study was not directly related to the fallout

problem, Castle-Bravo no doubt reminded Eisenhower that the United States was vulnerable to sneak attack from a hostile but closed nation, such as the Soviet Union. Thus, concurrently with the Commission’s fallout studies, the President asked James R. Killian, Jr., president of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to evaluate through a comprehensive review of weapons and intelligence technology ways of avoiding surprise attack. The Killian Report to the National Security Council in February 1955 would conclude that both sides would be vulnerable to a surprise attack by ther-

monuclear weapons, although the panel expected the United States to maintain the upper hand until 1960. Thereafter, attack by either side with 273 thermonuclear weapons would undoubtedly destroy more than cities or devastate regions; it would result in mutual destruction of the combatants.° Even while tests continued at the Pacific Proving Grounds in 1954 there were hurried efforts to evaluate fallout data from Bravo. This task fell

to both Commission staff and scientists working with the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project, the Department of Defense organization primarily

responsible for managing the military aspects of nuclear weapon technology. Established in 1947, the special weapons project had succeeded the Manhattan District in overseeing weapon development and production for the Defense Department. Before the end of May the special weapons project sent the Department of Defense and the Commission an analysis of “Radioactive Fallout Hazards from Surface Bursts of Very-High- Yield Nuclear Weapons.” Faced with an unprecedented and alarming situation, the Commission, the Federal Civil Defense Administration, the Department of

Defense, and the Office of Defense Mobilization formed a special interagency task force to revise minimum standards for dispersal of new industrial facilities from the ground zero of potential targets. Prior to Bravo the standard had been ten miles. Had it not been for fallout, the federal government would have found it comparatively easy, albeit sobering, to recommend new industrial guidelines based on information derived from the Bikini tests. But tripling the radius to thirty miles would not compensate for a fallout cloud forty miles wide and two hundred miles long.® After reviewing the dispersion standards on March 26, 1954, the President’s Science Advisory Committee expressed its satisfaction with existing standards but stressed that there could be no fixed standards for absolute safety. On May 26, however, when the Bravo implications were somewhat clearer,

Arthur S. Flemming, director of the Office of Defense Mobilization, requested Strauss’s advice on establishing new criteria. ’

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

For almost four months Strauss did not respond directly to Flemming’s request for help. Instead, during the intervening summer of 1954, the Commission studied the fallout problem, evaluating data that it shared with its own scientists and other agencies. Meeting in late May, the general advisory committee not only endorsed continued fallout studies but also recommended that, when the fallout phenomenon was better understood, the public should also be informed of the facts. As General Advisory Committee Chairman Isidor Rabi’s report to Strauss noted, it was hardly necessary to point out both the importance of and the ignorance about fallout from low-level thermonuclear bursts.® During the months immediately following the Castle test series, the

Commission was swamped with pressing problems of fallout evaluation, “clean up,” and public relations. Through the torrid summer there was little time for calm reflection or plans for public education. There was no

274 precedent, not even at Hiroshima or Nagasaki, for widespread contamination of human populations and habitats such as occurred after the Bravo shot. Data on acute or long-term radiation effects, both external and internal, on humans, pigs, chickens, dogs, coconut palms, papaya, tuna, and other flora and fauna were scarce or nonexistent. Immediate relocation and care for the sick Marshallese and negotiations with the Japanese government over compensation for the Lucky Dragon crew and its owners were the major post-test concerns.”

A TEST MORATORIUM CONSIDERED

Bravo had also raised international issues. At the United Nations, the Soviet Union and India were pushing for a resolution to condemn the United States for testing in its Pacific trust territories. More astonishing, Commissioner Murray at home suggested the possibility of a comprehensive test moratorium. On February 2, 1954, just a month prior to the Bravo shot, Murray explained to Strauss and the President that he had raised the issue “for discussion and exploration only” in response to Eisenhower’s Atomsfor-Peace initiative. Following Prime Minister Nehru’s public call for a test moratorium on April 2, Murray’s tentative proposal could no longer be brushed aside. Subsequently, Albert Schweitzer and Pope Pius XII in his Easter message joined the prominent persons who expressed moral concern over continued testing. '?

At the April 6, 1954, meeting of the National Security Council, Secretary of State Dulles slipped the President a handwritten note. “I think we should consider whether we could advantageously agree to Nehru’s proposal of no further experimental explosions.” The Secretary of State offered

the President assurances that “this could be policed—or checked—.” Eisenhower thought for a moment, and then launched his Administration’s

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

first exploration of the test ban idea by jotting in reply: “Ask Strauss to study.”!!

Six days later, in response to the worldwide expression of fear, but especially to Nehru’s proposal, United States Ambassador to the United Nations Henry Cabot Lodge asked Dulles whether the United States might agree to a partial moratorium on tests above one megaton.'? Although there never was a serious possibility that the United States would suspend the Castle test series, the Murray-Nehru-Lodge proposals ultimately forced the President and the National Security Council to grapple formally with the issue. On May 6, Dulles reported to the National Security Council that he had discussed the possibilities of a nuclear test moratorium with British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden during the April talks in London. Dulles reflected that the United States ought to favor a moratorium on the grounds that the Castle series had placed the Americans well ahead of the Russians. 2795 Strauss agreed that the Castle tests were of utmost importance, but he expressed skepticism, which Secretary of Defense Charles E. Wilson shared, that the United States could satisfactorily police a test moratorium. Kisenhower countered that enforcement of the test ban was not a major issue; if the Russians violated a test ban, the United States could simply resume its own testing. More important, the President believed United States sponsorship of a moratorium would put the Soviet Union on the spot. VicePresident Nixon concurred by noting that the Russians had a greater need to test nuclear weapons than did the United States. Consequently, the President directed Foster Dulles, Strauss, Allen Dulles, and Acting Secretary of Defense Robert Anderson to report to the National Security Council on the possibilities for stopping or limiting atmospheric tests.’” Eisenhower’s interest in a nuclear test moratorium, however, was not motivated simply by a desire to gain a propaganda advantage over the Russians. The President also fervently believed that it was wrong for the United

States to view “this terrible problem” negatively. Noting that the world faced a bleak future overshadowed by the hydrogen bomb, Eisenhower could not envision a long-term solution to the danger of nuclear warfare without first establishing a test ban.'* Unfortunately Eisenhower’s pursuit of a nuclear test ban was shortlived in spring 1954. After a month of study, Dulles informed the National Security Council that his committee was virtually unanimous in opposing a nuclear test moratorium. The recommendation reflected the power of logic over the power of will, Secretary Dulles wryly observed, because all members of the committee had professed their desire to end testing. Strauss, for one, had advised Dulles that a moratorium on testing large weapons would be advantageous to the United States, provided a dependable agreement could be worked out with the Soviet Union. The trouble, of course, was that Strauss believed that a reliable agreement with the Soviets was illusory.

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

Following advice the Commission had solicited from Edward Teller and Norris Bradbury, Strauss warned that it was feasible to conceal a low-yield test. Also worrisome to the Commission would be the deleterious effect on the weapon laboratories of a long-term moratorium. Dulles observed that the United States would enjoy an advantage over the Russians only in the short run, but that after January 1956 American weapon development would have to be significantly curtailed. !°

Eisenhower was genuinely disappointed that a nuclear test ban appeared unenforceable at the time. On May 25, the United States had introduced into the United Nations Disarmament Subcommittee a proposal to establish enforcement committees to oversee any disarmament programs. Subsequently, the United States also supported an Anglo-French proposal of June 11, 1954, which called for a phased approach to disarmament through successive stages and for nuclear disarmament phased with reduced con-

276 ventional armaments and forces. Although the President accepted the assumption that a test ban could not be effectively policed, he nevertheless categorically refused to link testing to an agreement on general disarmament. Putting the National Security Council on notice, Eisenhower informed his advisers on June 23 that if there were any way to negotiate an effective nuclear test ban or moratorium, he would do it. !®

The gathering in the Red Room of the White House the following afternoon was unusually somber. Off by themselves, Strauss and Lord Cher-

well were talking quietly. Surrounding the President and Prime Minister Churchill were Anthony Eden, Dulles, and a few other guests who had attended the Sunday luncheon in honor of the British delegation. Churchill spoke at length and with great feeling about his fears for the future of the British Isles. He had been told that two or three hydrogen bombs could wipe out all the inhabitants of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. After viewing the movies of the vy-Mike shot Churchill had ordered all work on air-raid shelters abandoned, given that shelters would prove useless in a thermonuclear attack. Then reversing a position he had taken in Bermuda the year before, Churchill informed Eisenhower that the British would proceed to develop a hydrogen bomb."

TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF FALLOUT

The Oppenheimer case and the debate over the Atomic Energy Act left the Commissioners little time to reflect upon the larger implications of fallout during June and July 1954, but there was growing concern elsewhere in the government, particularly in the Federal Civil Defense Administration. Late in June Robert L. Corsbie, chief of the Commission’s civil defense liaison branch, briefed civil defense officials on classified aspects of the fallout data collected at Bravo. For a second opinion the civil defense group turned

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

to the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project. The staff of the special weapons group included a number of prominent scientists, among them Herbert Scoville, Jr., a physical chemist who had worked at Los Alamos for two years after World War II before going to the Pentagon. From the group's report it was clear that Bravo had brought the world into a new era of nuclear weapons. Bravo represented as revolutionary an advance in explosive power over World War II atomic weapons as the Hiroshima weapon had over conventional bombs dropped in Europe during the war. The enormous fallout pattern from Bravo, however, indicated that thermonuclear weapons were far more deadly as a radiation device than

any explosive. Using fallout patterns from Bravo, the group estimated that detonating a fifteen-megaton weapon would deposit radioactive material

in sufficient densities over a 5,000-square mile area to be “hazardous to human life. Indeed, if no passive defense measures at all are taken, this figure probably represents the minimum area within which nearly one hun- 277 dred percent fatalities may be expected.” !®

The implications of Bravo reports were serious enough to warrant briefings of the National Security Council and the Joint Committee. Strauss

took responsibility for the security council while Scoville briefed the Wedemeyer panel, which Congressman Cole had appointed to study the impact of nuclear technology on continental defense. The distinguished membership of the panel, which included Army General Albert C. Wedemeyer, Gordon Dean, and Charles A. Lindbergh, indicated the importance the Joint Committee attached to the study.!? The panel was greatly disturbed by Scoville’s report on fallout effects and asked to what extent the American public and the world at large had been informed of the new data available since Operation Castle. Paul F. Foster, a retired Navy admiral and former business executive who had recently joined the Commission staff to assist the general manager on international matters, saw at once that the panel’s concern would soon spread to the Joint Committee itself. Foster warned Nichols that, despite injunctions of secrecy, there would be leaks to the press from someone taking it upon himself “to alert the public to the gravity of this, as yet unknown, danger.” ”° No doubt anticipating problems from the report of the Wedemeyer panel, the Commissioners met twice in September with the Joint Committee to report specifically what fallout information had already been provided to the Federal Civil Defense Administration. During these same weeks Strauss and Nichols, now convinced that a public statement was necessary, discussed how best to bring the matter before the National Security Council and the Operations Coordinating Board for a decision on issuing a full statement. Concurrently, the special interagency task force on dispersion standards, on which Foster represented the Commission, had been asked to develop a new policy on dispersion for recommendation to the cabinet. The task force completed its preliminary study in October. ?!

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

Speaking before an industrial health conference in Houston on September 23, 1954, John C. Bugher, head of the Commission’s division of biology and medicine, presented the first public analysis of the medical consequences of thermonuclear warfare. Although Bugher minimized the effects of continued testing by estimating that fallout “would have to be increased by the order of one million times before an increased frequency of bone sarcoma from this cause could be recognized” in the United States, he candidly reviewed the awesome characteristics of the Bravo shot. After describing the elongated cigar-shaped fallout cloud that contaminated approximately 7,000 square miles in the Pacific, Bugher concluded that thermonuclear warfare would create unprecedented medical and social prob-

lems. Not only would the nation have to cope with blast and thermal casualties on a scale never before conceived of in warfare, but also, he warned, the radiological damage could create havoc far beyond the imme-

278 diate attack zone. Although Bugher’s speech received wide press coverage and was distributed throughout the United States by the Commission and

the civil defense agency, its technical nature and guarded tone did not satisfy the increasing demands for public candor. ”?

On the day following Bugher’s speech, Strauss finally answered Flemming’s request for dispersion standards. Because it was impossible to predict what sort of weapon a potential enemy might develop within the next twenty years, for planning purposes the Commission estimated the effects of a sixty-megaton weapon as suggested by the Defense Department. Strauss stated that a distance of twenty-nine miles from the perimeter of the

target area should provide reasonable protection from blast and thermal effects. Twenty-nine miles, of course, would not offer refuge from lethal fallout of even a fifteen-megaton weapon. Unless fallout patterns could be immediately and accurately forecast and citizens warned, mass evacuation after a nuclear attack could easily catch refugees in the open where they could be least protected from exposure to radiation. The most effective mea-

sure, Strauss suggested, would be to take shelter in basements or underground structures for a few hours or days until radiation levels decayed sufficiently to allow safe evacuation under escort. Thus, no matter what the

dispersion radius, sheltering rather than evacuation would be required to protect the population against residual radiation if critical industries were to continue functioning after a nuclear attack.*? Obviously, public education on the effects of fallout would be required to win public support for a large-scale civil defense effort to build shelters. On October 1, Willard F. Libby replaced Smyth as the principal scientist on the Commission. Soon he would become the Commission’s chief spokesman on fallout. Twelve days after Libby’s appointment, the Commission briefed key State Department personnel, including Gerard Smith, on fallout from the Bravo shot. Several of Smith’s advisers were worried about the expected adverse impact that publication of fallout infor-

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

mation would have on American foreign policy, and they recommended against immediate release of a public statement. Several others opposed any publication at all. Thereafter, on October 21, Smith notified Foster at the Commission that the State Department had reached an “informal consensus” that publication would be deferred for some months.”* It was already too late, however, to stop public discussions. Like the radioactive cloud that had swept over the Pacific, the fallout debate could not be contained: it spread beyond government circles. Perhaps taking advantage of Bugher’s Texas speech or press coverage given to it, Joseph and Stewart Alsop were among the first journalists to recognize that the hydrogen bomb was a radiological weapon and not simply a gigantic version of the atomic bomb. Atomic bombs inflicted radiation casualties, the Alsops observed, but these hardly mattered since blast and heat damaged a larger area than that affected by radiation. The radiation effects from the thermo-

nuclear bomb, on the other hand, far transcended the destruction caused 279 by blast and fire. The Alsops clearly understood the strategic implications of this fact. They estimated that one hundred such super bombs could not only destroy most of America’s major cities but could also temporarily paralyze much of the industrial eastern seaboard.”° Thereafter, in the October issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Harold A. Knapp, Jr., a Navy Department analyst and the civil defense director for South Woodley, Virginia, estimated the potential threat of thermonuclear war to his small suburban community. Located seven miles from the Pentagon and ten miles from the White House, South Woodley was easily within the range of a hydrogen bomb aimed at Washington, D.C. Although Knapp focused almost exclusively on blast and thermal effects, he stressed the need for more technical information, especially concerning fallout, so that effective civil defense plans could be formulated.”°

FALLOUT: WHAT THE PUBLIC SHOULD KNOW

From within the Commission and the interagency task force, Foster continued to push for full public disclosure. Foster identified the issue as one of the gravest problems facing the Administration—so important that no one less than the President could deal with it adequately. Foster conceded that

disclosure by the government of the full dangers created by fallout was certain to create anxiety throughout the nation and abroad. Nevertheless, Foster believed it essential for Americans to confront “the stark facts of life” so that the public would support effective civil defense and dispersal of key industries. Acknowledging that recent press statements had hinted at the truth, Foster believed the public was prone to dismiss such reports as “journalistic exaggerations.” Only with official sanction from the President would Americans be convinced that the thermonuclear age required

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

a radical change in the physical structure of densely populated metropolitan areas.’ Foster anticipated several problems in releasing an official public statement of the effects of fallout. In Europe, he predicted, neutralist sen-

timent would almost certainly be strengthened, but at home the public might clamor for increased expenditures on continental defense at the expense of other military programs. Foster was also worried about the economic impact that such a statement might have on large cities where business interests could claim that property values were needlessly impaired by hysteria generated by disclosure. The political consequences were even more uncertain, and Foster speculated that an announcement could augment the ranks of either those who sought a retreat from containment or those who advocated preventive war on the theory that the United States might better survive an immediate conflict. Most seriously, he argued that 280 without public disclosure the civil defense officials, ignorant of the potential dangers, could not organize effective programs. To minimize hysteria while properly emphasizing the dangers, Foster recommended that Eisenhower inform the American public in a fireside talk broadcast over television.”® Val Peterson, federal civil defense coordinator, did not wait to find out what the President’s Cabinet planned to do. Three weeks after Bugher’s Texas speech, Peterson startled state civil defense directors at a closed meeting in Chicago by warning that “many millions of lives” might be lost to fallout unless proper civil defense precautions were adopted. But the civil defense directors were not the only startled officials. With the assistance of several dramatic charts, Peterson had so graphically described fallout patterns that Commissioner Libby worried whether the civil defense administrator had compromised classified information. Reminding the Commission that fallout comes from fission not fusion, Libby observed that the government could not admit that several hundred square miles were contaminated without disclosing the fact that the thermonuclear bomb contained a fission component of real magnitude. Nichols quickly pointed out that both the Lucky Dragon incident and the injury to the Marshallese had already compromised this information to a considerable degree. Japanese analysis of the fallout debris collected from the Lucky Dragon would ultimately render Libby’s objection moot. Nevertheless, the Commission de-

cided to censor carefully a ten-minute film the Federal Civil Defense Administration was producing to describe the dangers of fallout.*? During November 1954 the Administration lost its chance to provide candid fallout information to the American public. Nichols told the general

advisory committee that the British had already constructed an accurate map of a hypothetical fallout ellipse by scaling up known test data. Libby also noted that Knapp’s article on South Woodley had underestimated fallout by factors of five to ten. Since 1953, Bugher reported, Project GabrielSunshine had sharpened the Commission’s understanding of fallout. After

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

one big shot, for example, iodine-131 could be picked up anywhere in the world. Bugher estimated that every American received a dose to the thyroid equivalent to about 0.5 percent of that received by the Rongelap islanders. Without specifying localities, Bugher cautioned against the use of milk from heavily contaminated areas. Surveys also showed a consistent pattern of increasing levels of strontium-90 detectable in the New York milk supply. All this information on fallout, however, was still highly classified. In order to facilitate civil defense planning, Libby obtained a consensus from the committee that the Commission should increase the flow of information to the public despite the fact that fallout studies were still incomplete. *° Unfortunately Strauss was distracted by the Dixon- Yates hearings on

Capitol Hill and was unable to attend a crucial luncheon conference at the Pentagon on November 8, 1954. Secretary of Defense Wilson, the highest ranking official present, strenuously objected to any recommendations involving presidential announcement of fallout hazards. Throughout the con- 281 ference Wilson stressed the importance of allaying public anxiety about the prospects of thermonuclear warfare, particularly with reference to fallout. Too much had already been said publicly about fallout in his opinion; before the government outlined the danger’s full extent, he believed that it should make civil defense plans to cope with an “atomic blitz.” That was

just the point, Peterson argued; he could not develop an effective civil defense program without popular support based on public understanding. *! Because he was the only cabinet-level officer present, Wilson domi-

nated the meeting. Thus, instead of forwarding a recommendation to the President, as favored by Foster, the conference decided to establish a new working group organized by the Office of Defense Mobilization to study thoroughly the problems associated with “victorious survival in the event of atomic-nuclear warfare.” Working in cooperation with the Commission, the Department of Defense, and the Federal Civil Defense Administration, the new working group was to confine itself to nonmilitary matters and report directly to Flemming, rather than to the public.*?

Ironically, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, not Eisenhower, first expressed public concern over fallout. Speaking to the House of Commons on November 30, 1954, Churchill expressed his worry that cumulative radioactivity released from nuclear explosions would have serious effects on the earth’s atmosphere for five thousand years. As noted in the New York Times, Churchill’s statement was technically and militarily “confused and confusing,” yet it also addressed publicly one of the great mysteries and possibly one of the worst dangers of the nuclear age.** As if to underscore Churchill’s concern, Ralph E. Lapp published the first of his articles on fallout in the November issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. What chance the Commission had enjoyed to lead public discussion on fallout was now gone. As a nuclear physicist who had worked at Los Alamos during World War II and later with the research and

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

development board of the Defense Department, Lapp could write with some authority on nuclear weapons and their effects. Although Lapp referred to

fallout as a “secondary hazard,” he accurately observed that the fallout ellipses from Bravo had stunned civil defense planners and caused a major shift in policy. Lapp also demanded that the Federal Civil Defense Admin-

istration be given access to classified data on fallout so that the agency could accurately translate them into a realistic hazard assessment for the American public. Hanson Baldwin of the New York Times endorsed Lapp’s plea. And in that same November issue the editors of the Bulletin reprinted

Albert Schweitzer’s appeal to scientists to speak out for a suspension of weapon testing. Thereafter, Eugene Rabinowitch, the Budletin’s editor, in commenting on both Knapp’s and Lapp’s articles as well as Bugher’s speech, stated that the American nation as a matter of right should be given “all the information needed to prepare intelligently for the defense of its

282 cities, not only against blast and fire of an atomic war, but also against its radioactivity.” °* Clearly, public assessments and speculations were becoming more accurate and more insistent. In its own way, the Commission continued to encourage studies of the effects of ionizing radiation. At a national conference on genetics spon-

sored by the division of biology and medicine at the Argonne National Laboratory in November 1954, more than fifteen leading scientists were invited to present research on the effects of radiation on genes, chromosomes, cells, tissues, organisms, and populations. Although the papers were mostly technical reports of experiments with mice, fruit flies, plants,

or other organisms, Bugher reminded the conference of the geneticists’ larger responsibility, as a consequence “of man’s modification of his environment,” to assist in replacing opinions with conclusions in the formulation of national policy.*°

More directly related to the Bravo fallout, at the invitation of the science council of Japan, the Commission sent a delegation of six scientists headed by Paul B. Pearson, chief of the biology branch of the division of

biology and medicine, to a United States—Japanese conference on radiology. The conference, a success far beyond the Commission’s most sanguine hopes, met in Tokyo from November 15 to 19. It was apparent from the outset that the Japanese considered the conference of major international importance. Consequently, the Americans, including Morse Salisbury, the Commission’s chief public relations officer, prepared carefully for the meetings. Despite considerable apprehension among the scientists arriving in Tokyo less than two months after Kuboyama’s death in September

1954, a friendly atmosphere quickly developed between the delegates of both countries. At the end, the Americans were satisfied that they had provided the Japanese with a considerable body of useful information. In turn, the United States delegation was gratified to receive impressively extensive data concerning fallout from both American and Russian tests.*°

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

In addition to these scientific conferences, with renewed support from the general advisory committee, Libby offered the Washington conference of mayors on December 2 the government’s most definitive statement to that date on radiation hazards from fallout. Although Libby’s speech was by no means alarmist, he took pains to emphasize the qualitative and unexpected differences between fallout and traditional hazards from blast and heat. Libby stressed that an unprotected populace would suffer seriously,

but he was relatively optimistic that a sheltered citizenry, if beyond the immediate zone of detonation, could survive a thermonuclear attack. Skirting direct reference to testing, Libby did imply that the weapon tests had not added appreciably to worldwide natural background radiation. *’ Considering the fact that neither the Cabinet nor the President had as yet approved a public statement on fallout, Libby’s speech had been remarkably candid. Nevertheless, Strauss knew that the Commission could no

longer delay issuing an official statement his colleagues had already ap- 283 proved. Citing the death of Kuboyama, Churchill’s parliamentary speech, and recent articles by Baldwin, the Alsops, and Drew Pearson, Strauss also expressed his concern about the numerous alarming statements that had already been made by responsible American and foreign military authorities and scientists. Among the most serious, in Strauss’s opinion, had been the widely quoted statements by Alfred H. Sturtevant, a professor of genetics at the California Institute of Technology, and by Louis de Broglie, the French physicist and Nobel laureate. They predicted that the H-bomb tests would inevitably increase future birth defects. De Broglie had warned that nuclear experiments had created a danger to the world’s plant and animal life. Within security limits, Strauss insisted, the Commission simply had to be responsive to requests from the press for authoritative information on fallout hazards. Otherwise, the Commission would be accused of concealing vital information from the American public while at the same time it was attempting to counter fears that public health and safety were endangered by continued weapon tests in Nevada and the Pacific.*® From Strauss’s perspective, a policy of candor would provide the most certain protection for nuclear testing.

INTERNATIONAL IMPLICATIONS

At the State Department Dulles and Herbert Hoover, Jr., were the major opponents of releasing the Commission’s statement on fallout. Fearing severe damage to American foreign policy, Hoover cautioned the Operations Coordinating Board that even a discussion with the Cabinet might result in a disastrous leak. The French parliament, which had recently rejected the European Defense Community, was then considering ratification of the London Agreement rearming West Germany. Hoover thought French commun-

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

ists would use this fact to distort the fallout data in a propaganda campaign against the United States. In addition, it seemed likely that the information

would stimulate pacifism, especially in Germany, and create additional strains between the United States and the new government in Japan. At Hoover's suggestion, the Operations Coordinating Board recommended that

the Commission’s statement not be circulated even within the American government until after Strauss, Dulles, and the President determined how best to present the issue to the Cabinet.” Hoover had not categorically opposed release of the Commission statement, only its timing, although, as Foster put it, “the State Department never will think the time is propitious.” Strauss and Nichols observed that the Commission’s authoritative statement could not cause any more damage

than had uninformed but sensational speculations in the press. When Dulles personally requested Strauss to defer publication until the North 284 Atlantic Treaty Organization negotiations had been completed, the chairman acceded but not without carrying the matter directly to the President. At a Cabinet meeting on December 10, 1954, Eisenhower also noted, as Strauss put it, “the virtue of laying all the facts on the line before there is an inquisition.” Encouraged, Strauss reiterated that the best way to combat sensationalism and alarm was “to put the full facts forward with frankness.” ” Another month was lost, however, waiting for Dulles to return from Europe. In the meantime, the Commission searched for a way out of its dilemma. At his news conference on December 17, Strauss reported that the Commission staff was studying the fallout problem and expressed his hope

that a public statement could be made at a later date. In support of the chairman, the general advisory committee at its mid-December meeting continued to favor the release of a concise statement. Thus, with the State Department, the Federal Civil Defense Administration, and the Operations Coordinating Board kibitzing in the background, the Commission in January 1955 struggled through at least five different drafts of its statement on “The Effects of High Yield Nuclear Detonations.”*! During these deliberations Libby insisted that a fallout map be included in the press release. Gordon L. Dunning, health physicist with the division of biology and medicine, did not regard the map as either necessary or advisable but rather contended that an official fallout map would raise more questions than it answered. Because a fallout map would have to be constructed using data gathered from only a few points, Dunning believed that any such illustration could be easily misinterpreted. Consequently, the idea of providing an official fallout map was ultimately abandoned, leaving journalists and others to devise maps of their own.” Ironically, foreign, not domestic, developments precipitated publication of the Commission’s fallout statement. In London, Harold Macmillan, Minister of Defense, informed Deputy Secretary of State Dillon

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

Anderson that the Admiralty was obligated by law to report to Parliament on February 15 on the state of the United Kingdom’s defenses. Churchill had directed that the report include a statement on the effects of thermonuclear weapons. Having learned that the Commission was considering the release of a fallout statement, Macmillan requested an advance copy to assure that British and American fallout data were compatible. Gerard Smith, in his critique of the Commission’s statement, was especially concerned that the timing of the release be coordinated with the British and the Canadians so that even minor discrepancies could be reconciled rather than feed further speculations.* Foster seized this opportunity to emphasize how embarrassing it would be to the Administration if the American people received their first detailed official information on fallout from the British government. From another perspective Foster also saw the necessity of a prompt

release. With the five-power discussions on limitations of armaments 285 scheduled to begin in London in late February 1955, Foster was anxious for the United States to take the initiative by firmly establishing the American position. Communist propaganda, he observed, had already branded the United States as the originator and principal proponent of atomic warfare. Nehru, Mendes-France, and perhaps even Churchill might support Russian demands for halting thermonuclear testing. In agreement with Strauss, Foster believed that testing could best be defended by outlining the United States’ position before the communists organized another world-

wide campaign against testing on the basis of distorted use of fallout information.“

THE FALLOUT STATEMENT

Now that Whitehall had effectively made the decision for them, Eisenhower and the National Security Council finally saw the need to release the Com-

mission statement. On February 2, 1955, the President personally reviewed and annotated the draft, principally by underlining key phrases in the report. The following day at a meeting of the National Security Council Eisenhower expressed his determination not to be scooped by the British. Strauss assured the President that the Commission’s statement had been carefully worked out with the Operations Coordinating Board. The Federal Civil Defense Administration, he reminded the President, had been after such a statement for months. Despite continued fears expressed by Wilson and others, Eisenhower observed that his Administration had probably underplayed civil defense during a time when an informed citizenry was important. *°

Eisenhower formally approved release of the Commission’s statement on “The Effects of High-Yield Nuclear Detonations” on February 3;

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

whereupon the Commission immediately began preparations to publish its report. Before any action could be taken, however, Dulles returned from vacation. He complained that the Commission statement would stimulate neutralism and damage United States interests in West Germany and the

Far East as well as feed the Russian propaganda mill, which had been churning out demands for outlawing nuclear weapons. After Eisenhower asked that the best public relations man be consulted on the advisability of releasing the statement, Strauss dutifully reported that William E. Robinson, president of the Coca Cola Company, recommended against issuing any statement at all, on the grounds that it might stimulate neutralism overseas. Undaunted, Strauss once again insisted to Eisenhower that, irrespective of international complications, the American people should be told the facts so that civil defense planning could proceed. In a personal appeal to Strauss, Val Peterson concurred that without the Commission statement,

286 state and local civil defense officials lacked any planning base for protective measures.” At this late date Dulles could not block publication, but at his behest the Commission dropped the dramatic fallout map that Libby had thought important.

Finally, on February 15, 1955, the Commission issued its report accompanied by a statement from Strauss. After reviewing the effects of the

Bravo shot, Strauss offered assurances that continental testing at the Nevada Test Site created no off-site safety or health hazards. Concerned that the statement might jeopardize United States testing, Strauss stated without qualification that the hazard had been confined to the controlled area of the test site. The highest actual dose of radiation at an off-site community, he observed, was estimated to be less than one-third that allowed yearly for atomic energy workers under the Commission’s “conservative safety standards.” * To the satisfaction of the State Department, foreign reaction to the Commission’s statement was surprisingly mild. Among the North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries the announcement was accepted soberly and without much comment, according to reports to the National Security Council. Other international news tended to obscure the immediacy of the Commission’s story. In Switzerland, anticommunists seized the Rumanian legation. In London the United Kingdom announced plans to build the H-bomb and to construct twelve nuclear power reactors. The French were

bedeviled by their continuing political crisis, while in Japan a fire in Yokohama and Soviet-Japanese talks preempted most headlines. The only communist nation even to mention the report was East Germany. The Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China pointedly refrained from noting the statement, emphasizing instead the communists’ commitment to peace-

ful uses of atomic energy as well as to banning nuclear weapons. There were scattered sharp reactions in India, Japan, and France, while in London the Daily Worker played up the terror of fallout to support its continued

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

“Ban the Bomb” campaign. But aside from predictable criticism from the left, the National Security Council could discern no stimulus toward neutralism among America’s allies. * At home the Commission did not fare nearly so well. Before the Commission could release its statement to the public, Ralph Lapp on February || published his second and most alarming article on “Radioactive Fall-out” in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Lapp based much of his information on Libby’s December 2, 1954, speech and on the Japanese reports about the radiological analysis of “Bikini ashes.” At a time when most people had scarcely begun to comprehend the meaning of Hiroshima, Lapp conceded that it was still too early to appreciate the implications of the Bravo test. Nevertheless, he asserted that the new super bomb could be considered a radiological weapon that could “contaminate a state the size of Maryland with lethal radioactivity.” ” Lapp agreed with Libby that sheltering would provide substantial protection from radioactive fallout, es- 287 pecially if the government constructed an extensive system of fallout shelters on the periphery of the major cities. But he also criticized the government for maintaining tight secrecy on this vital issue. Prophetically, Lapp defined radioactivity as something mystical, understood by less than 0.1 percent of the American people; for their part, few scientists understood the terror that the “invisible killer” held for the nonscientist. Candor and education were the only antidote to this modern terror. °° Lapp’s article in the Bulletin and another in the New Republic on February 14 placed the Commission in the worst possible light. Not only did the Commission fail to receive credit for its candor, but its own statement, long in preparation, subsequently appeared a reluctant response to Lapp’s crusade. All along Strauss had feared just such an eventuality. Back in November he had predicted that the Commission might be left “holding the bag” just as in the Dixon- Yates controversy “where we wished to make all the information public long before.” *! Now for the second time within six months the Commission had to accept the responsibility and criticism for an Administration decision over which it had no control.

THE KEFAUVER HEARINGS

Following a flurry of excitement in the press, the Senate Subcommittee on Civil Defense of the Armed Services Committee on February 22, 1955, quizzed Libby and Bugher on the Commission’s weapon effects statement. Senator Estes Kefauver, chairman of the subcommittee, wanted to know why the Commission had not published official information about fallout until after the public was alarmed by Lapp’s sensational disclosures. Neglecting to point out that most of the magazine articles were based on infor-

mation taken from his own December 2 speech, Libby simply explained

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

that the Commission wanted to get the facts straight. Although Kefauver and Stuart Symington, who had joined the hearing, pressed for a more detailed explanation, Libby was not free to tell them the real reason for delay—that State and Defense had blocked publication for several months. Consequently, as Symington pointed out, public confidence in the government’s assurances was shaken when Lapp’s article was published before Strauss’s official announcement. Lapp himself, first as a witness before Kefauver’s subcommittee and subsequently in a follow-up article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, also accused the Commission of being dilatory and dissembling in informing the American people of fallout hazards. The year of secrecy maintained by the Commission resulted in a year of paralysis on civil defense preparedness, Lapp charged.°*? Even as Kefauver’s committee conducted its hearings, the Commission continued continental testing in Nevada with Operation Teapot. Libby

288 assured the senators that the Nevada tests were being conducted “in accordance with health and safety criteria designed to insure that there will be no harmful effects on the public.” Indeed, Libby continued, the Commission had detected no fallout hazardous to humans, animals, or agriculture beyond the immediate vicinity of the test site. Libby did not actually state that there were no risks in continental testing, but he certainly implied that the risks were minimal. In a speech delivered to University of Chicago alumni on June 3, 1955, and later submitted as an exhibit for the published civil defense hearings, Libby stated that the genetic damage caused by fallout from the Teapot tests would be so slight that no measurable increase in defective individuals would be observable.*?

FALLOUT MONITORING AT TEAPOT

Libby had every reason to speak with confidence about the effectiveness of

fallout precautions taken at Teapot. In the two years since the UpshotKnothole series the weapon laboratories at Los Alamos and Livermore had again accumulated a large backlog of tests that were urgently needed to develop various new weapons, especially small weapons, both fission and thermonuclear. Looking toward reducing the large amounts of fallout associated with tests in 1953 and 1954, the laboratories were also beginning to explore new designs that would reduce the ratio of fissionable to thermonuclear fuel in weapons so as to lessen fallout. The Commission had approved an ambitious program for fourteen shots at Teapot, but nine of these were less than ten kilotons, and all the high-yield shots were fired on towers 400 or 500 feet high. As a further precaution against heavy fallout, the new guidelines for continental test operations developed after Upshot-Knothole

were now in effect. Among these was the decision to reduce the maxi-

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

mum permissible exposure for off-site personnel to three roentgens for an entire year.” The most significant change in test procedures at Teapot was the increased attention given to off-site monitoring and the formal, largely independent role assigned to the U.S. Public Health Service. The service had first begun to respond to the health hazards of radiation in 1948; by 1950 it had organized a series of courses in radiation health training for its own officers and for other federal, state, and local agencies. About a dozen officers from the Public Health Service had assisted, at the Commission’s request, in collecting fallout data at fixed stations in small communities just outside the test area during the Upshot-Knothole series. For the first time, complete fallout records were made for an entire test series in these communities. The Public Health Service officers, however, were under the complete control of the Commission and the test organization, and all the

records they collected had to be turned over to the test group as classified 289 information. By the time of the Teapot tests, the Commission had signed an agree-

ment with the Public Health Service to participate in radiation monitoring in a more formal way. Sixty-six officers from the service participated in Teapot and assisted in collecting information that was later published on each of the fourteen shots. During the series the officers were permitted to discuss their readings with residents and to provide them with information about the tests. These procedures not only produced more complete data

than had been collected at earlier tests, but they also helped to assure nearby residents that potential fallout hazards were not being concealed by classifying the data.*°

THE NEVADA TEST SITE

Despite official assurances, concerns about the continued use of the Nevada Test Site increased after release of Libby’s fallout statement. On the day after his testimony before Kefauver’s subcommittee, Libby was shocked to learn that Senator Anderson had written Strauss to request another reassessment of using the Nevada site for testing any but the very smallest devices. Anderson’s about-face coincided with second thoughts Strauss also harbored. The chairman now confessed to Murray and Libby that, if the decision were his, the two largest shots in the Teapot series would be fired in the Pacific. He had always been frightened, Strauss noted somberly, that something would happen to damage the Commission’s public image.°©

When Strauss observed, however, that both Las Vegas newspapers

favored continued use of the Nevada site on the grounds that the tests

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

promoted both national defense and local prosperity, Libby interjected that this was a most sensible point of view. “People have got to learn to live with the facts of life,” Libby declared, “and part of the facts of life are fallout.” Such a philosophy was all right, Strauss countered, “if you don’t live next

door to it,” “or live under it,” as Nichols ruefully noted. Nevertheless, Murray insisted, the Commission could not let anything interfere with the Teapot test series, “nothing.” Bugher assured the Commission that residents of the area, and especially those living in St. George, Utah, were hypersensitive to low-level radiation from fallout. “It is not a question of health or safety with St. George,” Bugher reported, “but a question of public relations.” %

New developments continued to make the Commission look bad on the fallout issue. In March, radioactive fallout from the Teapot tests was

reported in widely scattered locations in Colorado, Nebraska, Chicago, 290 New York City, New Jersey, and South Carolina. Yet in his testimony before Kefauver’s committee on March 4, Val Peterson complained that security considerations had hampered the Federal Civil Defense Administration in making available to state and local civil defense planners pertinent information on weapon effects and fallout. Even within the Federal Civil Defense Administration, Peterson could not discuss fallout data with officials cleared for access to top' secret information because they did not also have a clearance for Restricted Data. Unintentionally, Peterson left the impression that the Commission had hindered the civil defense effort by being overly strict, inflexible, or both. In fact, the Federal Civil Defense Administration had difficulty analyzing classified fallout data provided by the Commission because Peterson had consciously kept the number of cleared persons as small as possible. This restriction proved shortsighted after several cleared staff members resigned rather than move to the agency’s new headquarters in Battle Creek, Michigan. Although Peterson duly explained the problem to the Joint Committee, the press in the meantime had castigated the Commission for being uncooperative and secretive. The Joint Committee’s hearings on civil defense planning on March 24, 1955, enabled Strauss to explain for the first time why the Commission

had delayed in releasing the fallout effects statement. By then, however, the Joint Committee was rather disinterested in the Commission’s old dilemma, and Strauss’s explanation for the delay was greeted with little comment or publicity. ®

Of far greater interest to the Joint Committee were the possible effects of nuclear tests on both weather and human health. On April 2, ranchers around Sheridan, Wyoming, were mildly annoyed when a spring snow

began to dust the semiarid range. Before it was over, the storm buried northern Wyoming under almost forty inches of snow, killing livestock and paralyzing the region. Severe weather also complicated Senator Anderson’s

life: returning home for Easter recess by air, Anderson could not land at

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

Albuquerque; later, continuing storms prevented him from catching his return flight to Washington. It was the first time in thirty years that the senator had experienced such weather in New Mexico. Moreover, the Rio Grande was dry in April, an unprecedented situation according to the records of the U.S. Weather Bureau. Harry Wexler of the U.S. Weather Bureau observed that it was almost impossible “to prove that something isn’t so.” From Wexler’s point of view, weather conditions were essentially normal, but he admitted that there was always a slight possibility that the tests

had affected the weather. Because of this possibility, he concluded, no

- 29]

matter how much evidence the weather bureau marshalled to the contrary, a segment of the public would always be convinced that testing had altered the weather.*?

FALLOUT: AN INTERNATIONAL ISSUE

While the public remained primarily concerned about the weather, which apparently still remained impervious to human will, scientists worried more and more about the health effects of fallout. On March 3, as a direct reaction to the Commission’s February 15 statement, M. Stanley Livingston, a prominent nuclear physicist and chairman of the Federation of American

Scientists, proposed establishing a United Nations commission to assess the radiation dangers from nuclear tests. Citing the injuries to the Lucky Dragon fishermen, the contamination of Pacific tuna, and the call of India’s Prime Minister Nehru for an H-bomb test ban, Livingston observed that the implications of thermonuclear testing could not be limited to national con-

siderations. On the heels of the federation’s proposal, the Indian government sent a formal note to the United Nations Secretary General reiterating its intention to press for a moratorium on nuclear testing at the next meeting of the United Nations Disarmament Commission.” That international fallout studies might be linked to demands for a

cessation of nuclear testing was precisely what the Commission and the Defense Department had feared. Herbert B. Loper, Assistant Secretary of Defense (atomic energy), warned that a United Nations study “would place the United States in a position of recognizing and admitting that its weapons

tests are endangering the lives and health of the peoples of other countries.”°! Although Loper did not think the tests had been inimical to public

health, he did believe an international debate on fallout would damage United States national interests. Similarly concerned, the British Embassy on March 18 advised the State Department that a United Nations scientific study of fallout would merely provide the Russians with a propaganda opportunity. As if to confirm the political sensitivity of the issue, four days later the Conservatives in the House of Commons beat back by forty votes a Labour motion for

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

ceasing nuclear tests until an international conference of scientists had studied radiation effects.” The Commission’s initial strategy was to oppose the United Nations project while promoting an independent study by the National Academy

of Sciences, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. At the request of the Commission even before Loper expressed his opposition to a United Nations study, the National Academy of Sciences announced on April 8 its willingness to prepare a report with Rockefeller money and Commission cooperation. The Commission’s division of biology and medicine had concluded that the National Academy of Sciences was not only a more appropriate group than the United Nations for this task but also that the American scientists could be given access to certain highly classified data that would lend greater public credibility to an academy report. The Commission’s alternative was compromised, however, when 292 United Nations Ambassador Lodge, as a countermove in the face of growing international concern, urged the State Department to submit a resolution to the General Assembly calling for the United Nations to collect and disseminate national radiation health studies. Under Lodge’s plan, the National Academy of Sciences study would become the United States’ major contribution to the international data collection. Lodge obviously wanted the United States to seize the initiative so that the Americans could gain some control over what appeared to be an inevitable United Nations re-

sponsibility. That same day, April 13, Senator Frederick G. Payne of Maine, supported by twenty-one other senators, introduced a resolution supporting a United Nations study of the radiation effects from nuclear explosions.™

Again Strauss found himself at odds with the State Department. In his April 15 testimony to the Joint Committee he had planned to state flatly his opposition to any international study on the “radiation problem.” On

the preceding day, however, at the urging of Under Secretary of State Hoover, Strauss agreed to withhold his opposition and merely to note that the possibility of an international study at some future date was not ruled out. Nevertheless, in executive session before the Joint Committee Strauss

clearly indicated his sentiments by reporting that the Commission had taken a position not favoring the federation’s proposal. Repeating British opposition to the idea, Strauss frankly indicated his concern that a United Nations panel might become “a packed jury of scientists,” many of them from Iron Curtain countries more interested in propaganda than fact.® Despite Strauss’s and the Commission’s continued objections, Lodge adroitly secured the Administration’s support for the United Nations radia-

tion study. On April 20, 1955, Senator Payne, now with the support of twenty-five sponsors, formally introduced a joint resolution calling for the United Nations study. Shortly thereafter, on May 4, Swedish Foreign Minister Bo Osten Unden announced that Sweden might also propose a United

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

Nations study. Lodge was now convinced that some delegation—either Sweden, India, or Pakistan—would raise the issue. He was determined to gain control of the situation in order to protect United States security interests, as well as to reap public credit. By advocating international coordination of national studies, Lodge hoped to divert attention from American tests to those of the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union and at the same time reduce building pressures for a moratorium on testing. Indeed, unless the United States acted positively, Lodge feared, the Geneva peaceful uses conference might degenerate into an international debate on the effects of

nuclear testing. Although even Gerard Smith remained skeptical of Lodge’s position,

Loper conceded in May that from a propaganda point of view the Lodge approach had considerable merit. Because the United Nations would serve only as a clearinghouse for collecting and distributing studies that might be

produced anyway, the Department of Defense had no continuing objec- 293 tion.°’ With Loper’s acquiescence, Lodge could now tackle the Commission head-on.

On May 20, 1955, Dulles, Strauss, and Lodge, with Smith and Hoover, met to resolve the impasse. Although preliminary meetings among Lodge, Libby, Foster, and Smith had laid the foundations for an agreement, Strauss at first seemed as adamant as usual. After Dulles reiterated Lodge’s arguments, giving special emphasis to the assumption that the Swedes or Indians would act if the United States did not, Strauss confessed that he

was willing to accept the onus of opposing anything proposed by these governments. Strauss observed that it might take two hundred years to document the effects of radiation on human genetics. In the meantime, the use of antibiotics in modern medicine might produce even more serious mutations than radiation. But Strauss did not oppose the international study simply because he believed it would produce inconclusive results. Fundamentally, Strauss and the Commission feared that an international investigation of radiation effects would lead into “dangerous paths where demands for cessation of nuclear tests and the disclosure of information concerning [United States] weapons would possibly result.” Lodge reassured Strauss that, if adopted, the United States proposal

would not call for any “judgment” on the part of the United Nations. In fact, Lodge suggested using the Disarmament Commission, on which the Soviet Union served as a minority of one, as a clearinghouse to receive national reports. Strauss understood all this, but he was skeptical that the United States could control either debates or amendments once the matter had been brought before the United Nations. When Gerard Smith next predicted that the Defense Department would object to linking radiation studies with disarmament, Dulles replied that the alternative, an ad hoc body, inevitably would raise the question of Indian membership. The consensus

was that the Disarmament Commission, on which India was not repre-

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

sented, was the most readily controllable body available. With that understanding, Dulles asked Lodge to prepare a revised draft resolution. Somewhat belatedly, General Loper, now with second thoughts, expressed the Defense Department’s objections to any language in the draft resolution that suggested guilt or implied any official uncertainty on the part of the United States. Loper wrote to Smith,

While we recognize that many of our scientists, particularly those not directly connected with the radiation evaluation program, are critical, skeptical and uncertain, the official position of the United States Government, as expressed by the Atomic Energy Commission, 1s that there is no basis for concern. Accordingly, Loper insisted that the resolution make clear that the United Nations’ only mission would be “to weigh the evidence and make known

294 the facts.”

Throughout spring and summer 1955, the Commission contended that fallout from weapon tests had created a public relations issue, not a health and safety problem. Furthermore, along with the Department of Defense, the Commission believed that national security might be endangered if public concern over fallout led to political pressure to suspend nuclear testing. Consequently, the Commission intensified its public relations offensive by encouraging Dunning to prepare a scholarly article on “The Effects of Nuclear Weapons Testing.” Dunning’s highly technical paper, how-

ever, not published until December 1955, did little to relieve public anxiety.’' In a more popular vein, Commissioner Libby addressed the alumni at the University of Chicago on “Radioactive Fallout.” Although Libby’s speech was also highly technical, it was straightforward about the dangers of radioactivity while offering the public some assurances. If all the dosages from all atomic tests since 1945 were added together, Libby calculated, the total dosage for the American people would average considerably less than one-tenth roentgen or less than 0.02 percent of what was believed to be a lethal dose (400 roentgens). In actual fact, Libby estimated that as of January 1, 1955, the total dosage over the United

States from tests was about 0.001 roentgen per year. The tests, he concluded, “therefore, do not constitute any real hazard to the immediate health.” On long-range somatic hazards, Libby flatly stated that “natural radioactivities of the body, the effects of the cosmic radiation and the natural radiation of the radioactivities of the earth’s surface constitute hazards which are much greater than the test fallout hazards.” Libby did not want to imply that there were no risks, but rather that the risks from testing were no greater, and indeed were less, than those naturally encountered. Libby underscored this thesis in his section on the genetic effects of testing. Quoting from a May 1955 report of the advisory committee on bi-

ology and medicine, Libby conceded that radiation produced by fallout

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

from tests as well as from the peaceful application of atomic energy would produce additional mutations in human genes. But there would be “no measurable increase in defective individuals” as a result of the weapon tests because the small number of additional cases would not measurably change the ratio of forty thousand defective children to four million annual births. Of course, both somatic and genetic damage caused by all-out nuclear war could be catastrophic, an estimate Ralph Lapp confirmed simultaneously in his June 1955 article published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.” At the conclusion of his Chicago speech, Libby mentioned both the study by the National Academy of Sciences funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and a similar study in England by the Medical Research Council under the chairmanship of Sir Harold Himsworth. Without mentioning Lodge’s proposal for a United Nations project, Libby simply expressed his hope that the American and British studies would be fully coordinated.

Finally reconciling the Commission and the Department of Defense 295 to the wisdom of an American initiative at the United Nations, Lodge announced the United States proposal for an international pool of fallout data

at the United Nations’ tenth anniversary celebration in San Francisco. Approved in advance by several nations, including Britain and Sweden, Lodge’s plan was to assemble all available information on the effects of nuclear test fallout “so that all nations can be satisfied that humanity is not endangered by these tests.” Giving credit to the influence of Libby’s June 3 speech in Chicago and thereby offering the Commission some welcome publicity, Lodge reaffirmed his conviction that fears about fallout had been greatly exaggerated. Because military topics were not to be considered at the Geneva peaceful uses conference in August, Lodge intended formally to introduce the American resolution to the General Assembly when it reconvened in September. ”

THE INSEPARABLE LINKAGE

The Bravo shot unexpectedly had forged inseparable links between the fallout issue and international demands for a nuclear test ban. With the exception of Murray, the Commission labored in vain to break the two issues apart. But as in tempering steel, the more the Commission threw cold water on the linkage, the harder it became. If anything, the Commission’s

February 15, 1955, statement on fallout and its spring public relations campaign on the safety of testing had only reinforced the interrelatedness of the two issues. The chain of circumstances that led inexorably to the nuclear test moratorium in 1958 was not singularly, or even primarily, the making of the Atomic Energy Commission. In fact, the Commission consistently opposed a nuclear test ban. Nevertheless, the Commission’s role was not one of simple, mindless opposition; rather it was complicated by the

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

fact that it served as the President’s main source of scientific and technical information on nuclear issues. As such, the Commission was often obliged to provide information and opinions that actually facilitated test ban negotiations. The ambiguousness of the Commission’s task was especially re-

vealed in its relationship to Harold E. Stassen, whom Eisenhower appointed as special assistant for disarmament on March 19, 1955. Eisenhower’s decision to make a Cabinet-level officer responsible for developing basic disarmament policy was unprecedented. Stassen had become something of a political wunderkind after Minnesota elected him the

nation’s youngest governor ever at the age of thirty-one. Thereafter, he served as an American delegate to the San Francisco United Nations conference in 1945. Beaten by Thomas E. Dewey for the Republican presidential nomination in 1948, Stassen had vigorously supported Eisenhower in the 1952 elections. Subsequently, he was chosen to head the Foreign 296 Operations Administration. Following Stassen’s disarmament appointment, Eisenhower was delighted when the press referred to the former governor as the “Secretary for Peace.” Stassen was given a delicate assignment requiring utmost skill in balancing conflicting interests represented by the State Department, the Pentagon, and the Commission, as well as by the Soviet Union and America’s North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies. Stassen’s appointment was announced in the midst of the London Disarmament Conference, which had convened in February 1955 only to be quickly deadlocked. Hoover, Acting Secretary of State while Dulles was in Bangkok, viewed the discussions as “only a debating exercise with the Communists using it for their usual propaganda purposes.” Thus, Stassen was called upon to conduct a comprehensive review of American policy and strategy.” In addition to his immediate White House disarmament staff borrowed from various agencies, Stassen established eight task forces to study the requirements and methods of effective international inspection and control. Ernest O. Lawrence headed the task force on the inspection and control of nuclear materials. Others included General James H. Doolittle on aerial inspection and reporting, General Walter B. Smith on inspection and

reporting of Army units, Walker L. Cisler on power and industry, and James B. Fisk of Bell Laboratories on communications. The entire effort would parallel the Commission’s search for international control of the peaceful uses of atomic energy. ” Stassen had hardly begun his work when the Soviet Union offered a new proposal to the London Disarmament Conference on May 10, 1955. At

first American negotiators were uncertain whether the Russian initiative was genuine or simply another propaganda ploy. Nevertheless, the imperatives of the thermonuclear age seemed to require that the Russians be given the benefit of the doubt until otherwise proven disingenuous. The

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

Soviet proposals, which indicated much greater flexibility than ever before, essentially accepted the Anglo-French formulas for reductions in conven-

tional and nuclear weapons and in armed forces. In addition the Soviet proposal called for the cessation of nuclear weapon tests as part of a ban on nuclear weapons. Although the Soviet Union continued to demand the elimination of United States bases abroad as well as abolition of nuclear weapons, the new proposal also recognized the scientific difficulties in accounting for nuclear material and in guarding against surprise attack.’ From the American point of view, the Soviet initiative was unacceptable because it lacked provisions for effective safeguards and inspection. By May 26, Stassen had prepared for the President his first report, which included an analysis of the Soviet proposal. Stassen believed that the Russians had placed disarmament in a “political package” that hinted at the possibility of a Russian withdrawal from central Europe in return for

a United States pullback from Europe and the Far East. Although the So- 297 viets had called for abolishing nuclear tests and weapons, the Russian plan

did not provide for ceasing nuclear production. Furthermore, Stassen noted, the Soviet proposal offered only a “Korean-Armistice-Commission type of control over ‘big’ ports, railways, airdromes, etc.” that was supposed to provide a crosscheck on nuclear capabilities and a warning against surprise attack. Significantly, however, Stassen did not dismiss the Russian overtures out of hand. Rather, he stressed the importance of finding some means of ending the arms race on terms compatible with American security

interests.

On June 30, 1955, having already received unfavorable comments from the Commission, the Department of Defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Stassen briefed the National Security Council on his suggestions for a United States disarmament policy. Stassen recommended that the United States seek an agreement with the Soviet Union to end the arms race by leveling off armaments, ceasing nuclear tests and weapon production, and establishing an International Armaments Commission to supervise an arms control agreement.’? Eisenhower, generally sympathetic with Stassen’s plan, thought the United States had to gain considerably more support from its allies, especially the United Kingdom, before any agreement could be reached with the Russians. Defense Secretary Wilson explained that the Pentagon did not expect to settle all major issues with the Soviet Union before signing an arms control agreement. Nevertheless, without a significant change in Russian attitudes and policies on inspection and supervision, Wilson believed no agreement would be possible. The first order of business, Wilson suggested, should be to crack the Iron Curtain, perhaps through a movement toward free trade.®? Speaking for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Arthur W. Radford expressed their solid opposition to the Stassen proposal. He

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

declared that the plan was unworkable unless it included Communist China as well. Otherwise, Stassen’s project would lead to the military inferiority of the United States. Replying with some warmth, Eisenhower reminded the council that the Joint Chiefs of Staff had also rejected the Baruch plan in toto. As far as

Eisenhower could see, Radford believed that the United States “should proceed as at present in the arms race despite the fact that this was a mounting spiral towards war.” With withering scorn, Eisenhower wondered why the Joint Chiefs did not at once counsel preventive war with the Soviet

Union. Taking another tack, the President argued that if the Russians failed to “play straight” on inspections, the United States could always abrogate the disarmament agreement. Radford demurred, by granting the theoretical possibility of the President’s argument, but he doubted whether public opinion at home or abroad would allow the United States to counter

298 Russian violations. Somewhat more patiently Eisenhower admitted that Stassen’s proposal raised problems, but it also had the virtue of being a creative starting point for negotiations. Then essentially concurring with Wilson and Radford, he agreed that the crux of the problem was inspection. Now Dulles captured the lead in the debate. If the United States did not make some bona fide move towards disarmament, Dulles predicted that

Americans would lose allies and the right to use foreign bases. Not only was it impossible to stand still, but the United States could not wait for the settlement of political issues in Europe and the Far East. In Dulles’s opinion, disarmament and political settlement had to proceed concurrently. Agreement was possible, the Secretary of State believed, because the Russians genuinely wanted some reduction in the arms race in order to deal more effectively with internal problems. Granting that inspection was the central issue, Dulles thought that no one had sufficiently studied the matter, including Stassen. Would the United States really be willing to allow Russian inspectors into American industrial and military centers? Dulles was skeptical and reminded the council that policing had seemed impossible to Baruch’s planners. Since disarmament negotiations would most likely break down at this point, inspections would be the area in which the Department of State would put its greatest effort. Eisenhower was satisfied with Dulles’s approach. Noting that the problem of inspection could not readily be separated from the substantive issues of disarmament, the President concluded with the obvious: the type of disarmament plan adopted would clearly dictate the type of inspection needed. Throughout the debate Strauss sat glumly quiet. Opposed to a nuclear test ban, a key feature in Stassen’s proposal, Strauss sought some means of supporting Wilson and Radford without incurring the wrath of the

President. Finally he spoke pessimistically. Was it not possible, Strauss speculated wistfully, to pursue the approach first suggested by the President in his Atoms-for-Peace speech? Because the Russians could not be

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

trusted, Strauss thought the best approach was the atomic pool that would drain off fissionable material from weapon stockpiles; this approach would take the heat off the United States while placing the Russians at a strategic disadvantage. As the meeting concluded, Eisenhower ignored Strauss’s irrelevant comments by returning to the main issue and asking Stassen to adjust his plan to an acceptable inspection system. Vice-President Nixon concurred with the comment that nothing was more important from a political point of view than an inspection system that would penetrate the Iron Curtain. The inspection issue, according to Nixon, was also the United States’ most effective propaganda issue.

THE GENEVA SUMMIT CONFERENCE 999 Always suspicious of Russian motives, Dulles had responded to the gradual thaw in relationships with the Soviet Union by remaining cool himself to a summit meeting until after the Soviets had demonstrated their sincerity by

concluding an Austrian peace treaty. In May 1955, the Russians, as part of their post-Stalin revision of foreign policy, suddenly signed an Austrian treaty. Now on the spot and fearful that the Soviets might achieve a significant propaganda victory from their talk of “peaceful coexistence,” Dulles, with the backing of the National Security Council, nevertheless continued to believe that the Russians would not deviate from their attempts to disrupt the North Atlantic Treaty Organization unity and to expand their influence,

principally by subversion and insurrection, while avoiding direct confrontation with the Western powers. Dulles predicted that the Russians would use the Geneva summit conference, now scheduled for July 1955, to achieve considerable gains in moral and social stature over Western leaders. Unless the conference ended in utter failure, Dulles estimated that the Soviets would partially succeed in relaxing efforts at NATO build-up and German rearmament. In contrast, he did not believe that the Russians would achieve their disarmament goals by emphasizing “ban the bomb” at the expense of “the painstaking procedures needed to assure adequate safeguards.” Dulles’s confidence in the American ability to parry Russia’s disarmament thrust was bolstered by the United States’ plan to offer its own proposal designed to counter Soviet “ban the bomb” propaganda.®! Speaking directly to Soviet Premier Nikolai Bulganin at the summit meeting in Geneva on July 21, 1955, Eisenhower offered his Open Skies plan, which called for exchanging blueprints of military facilities and establishing bases for aerial photography and reconnaissance in each country. If adopted, Eisenhower’s plan would have greatly lessened the danger of

surprise attack. The President envisioned Open Skies as a confidencebuilding first step toward ending the arms race. Similar to ideas coinciden-

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

tally developed by Nelson A. Rockefeller, the Open Skies proposal directly addressed the central issue of safeguards and inspection that the National

Security Council held as the Administration’s first priority. Because the Russians would almost certainly reject the Eisenhower plan on the grounds that it violated national sovereignty, Open Skies may have had a second purpose: to quiet European fears over stationing American nuclear warheads in Europe. *”

On the same day that Eisenhower proposed Open Skies, Bulganin reiterated the Soviet proposal for establishing control posts at major sea and air ports, at railway junctions, and along main highways in order to prevent surprise attack. Khrushchev, on the other hand, virtually rejected Open Skies outright as nothing more than a spy system. The Russians, however, offered no new disarmament proposals at Geneva. 300 “OPEN SKIES” OVER NUCLEAR FACILITIES

From the Commission’s point of view, it was just as well that the Russians did not embrace the Open Skies proposal because the Commission had its own serious reservations about the President’s plan. The Commission’s concerns came to light when Arkady Sobolev, Soviet representative to the disarmament subcommittee, inquired whether nuclear weapons were included in Eisenhower’s plan. The Russian’s question was reasonable and, as Sobolev explained, consistent with the Soviet Union’s desire to outlaw atomic and hydrogen weapons and to discontinue nuclear testing. Stassen, recently appointed to the U.N. Disarmament Subcommittee by the President and uncertain how to respond, announced that the United States had placed a “reservation” on all of its “pre-Geneva substantive positions” pending review of United States policies. Stassen’s announcement was certainly candid, but it also squandered some of the President’s hard-won propaganda victory by throwing in doubt American policies and Western solidarity.*° Ironically, both the Russians and the Commission were able to exploit the uncertainty created by Stassen’s faux pas. When Stassen admitted that American disarmament policy was under review, he all but announced that the United States held “reservations” concerning its previous support of French and British positions. This apparent break in Western solidarity allowed the Russians to regain the initiative by offering numerous “first steps” to disarmament, confident that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies were in no position to respond positively. In his formal reply to Eisenhower on September 19, Bulganin pointedly noted that Stassen had been unable to clarify the American position. Did the United States still accept the 1952 Anglo-French proposals on force reductions? Was the United States willing to discuss control of atomic weapons? Would the United States also consider Soviet proposals

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

for ground control posts? All Stassen would discuss, Bulganin complained, was aerial photography and exchange of “blueprints,” which unfortunately

included only the United States and the Soviet Union. To be workable, Bulganin suggested, Open Skies would have to include all allied nations, East and West.®* By sly implication, Bulganin tweaked the Americans for refusing to recognize the Chinese communists and excluding them from the disarmament negotiations.

Sobolev’s question and Stassen’s “reservations” also enabled the Commission to seek exemption for its facilities and programs. First, Strauss was especially worried that if the United States were obligated to disclose nuclear stockpile figures, the Russians would be able to calculate production rates by extrapolating from any two stockpile reports. Second, Strauss

was afraid that the Soviets might be able to improve their bomb design significantly by studying photographs of American thermonuclear weapons.

He asked that the President be alerted to these problems so that Eisen- 301 hower’s intentions for Open Skies could be clarified.*° Before Strauss could

take his questions to the President, disaster struck the Administration. On September 24, while on vacation, Eisenhower suffered his first heart attack.

Stunned, the National Security Council nevertheless met on October 13 to hear Stassen’s recommendations based on his discussions with the disarmament subcommittee. It was possible, Stassen thought, that the Russians might initially accept limited Open Skies over a band of territory one hundred to two hundred miles wide. Under the circumstances, Strauss was hardly in a position to press vigorously the Commission’s case against including nuclear weapons and facilities. Dulles demurred, however, and virtually answered the Russians and the Commission by expressing doubt whether the President’s Open Skies concept was “divisible.” The problem with limited air inspection, Dulles suggested, was that the Russians might accept a modest plan with the hope that it would never have to be expanded. Obviously melancholy, perhaps discouraged, Dulles compared Open Skies with Atoms for Peace. Both ideas had been offered by Eisenhower primarily with the hope of improving the climate of international relations. In neither instance had the President fully appreciated the technical difficulties his proposals raised for inspection and safeguards. Vast technical problems would have to be solved, Dulles predicted, before any kind of worldwide system for arms inspection and control, including the exchange of blueprints and other military information, could be established. All the same, Dulles mused, the President’s Geneva offer had “put the Russians on the hook.” Dulles wanted to keep them there and thought it inappropriate to make any limited deal with Moscow until Eisenhower could make his own views of the matter known.® Just prior to the Geneva foreign ministers’ conference called in November 1955 to discuss arms control, Stassen submitted to the National

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

Security Council his “Proposed Policy of the United States on the Question of Disarmament.” Stassen identified three priority objectives of the United States: (1) to open up the Soviet Union and other communist-controlled countries to effective inspection; (2) to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other nations; and (3) to inhibit the Soviet Union’s development

of intercontinental missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons. To achieve these aims, Stassen endorsed Open Skies, a modest reduction in conventional armed forces, the prohibition of the production of nuclear material for any purpose other than peaceful uses, and expanded scientific

and cultural exchanges. Stassen also suggested that space satellites and intercontinental missiles be developed only through international collaboration for peaceful purposes, precluding weapon testing and production. Although the United States should agree neither to reduce nuclear stocks nor to withdraw from overseas bases, Stassen recommended that a ban on 302 nuclear testing should be part of a comprehensive agreement.*’ Stassen’s support of a nuclear test ban virtually insured that the Commission would seriously object to the proposed disarmament policy. The Commission supported Stassen’s basic principles and premises, although Strauss noted that Stassen had not made clear whether his three priorities were offered in addition to, or as a substitute for, policy objectives outlined in previous reports. Confusion, however, was not the Commission’s major concern. Writing on behalf of the Commission, Strauss outlined the chief deficiencies of Stassen’s plans. Surprisingly, the Commission’s first

objection was that Communist China was not included in the proposed agreements. The Commission’s motives in raising this sensitive issue may have been mixed. On the one hand, the Commission was on solid ground when it argued that no comprehensive inspection and control system could

exclude the People’s Republic of China. On the other hand, given the Administration’s intransigence over diplomatic recognition of Communist China, the Commission’s insistence that an effective agreement required Chinese participation virtually precluded a comprehensive treaty. Although the Commission’s argument for including Communist China may have been a gambit designed to impede negotiations (the Russians had used the same tactic), the Commission was supported in this position by Allen Dulles of the Central Intelligence Agency.* Strauss’s second reservation touched closest to the Commission’s fears. For political reasons, the Commission could not categorically oppose

a nuclear test ban, but Strauss forcefully argued “that the suspension of nuclear tests should be listed as one of the items to which the United States will not agree except as part of the final phase of a comprehensive program for the limitation of armaments.” On this point, the Joint Chiefs of Staff essentially concurred with the Commission, while Secretary of Defense Wilson more obliquely urged the implementation of Open Skies as the first

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

and central objective of United States disarmament policy, subordinating all other goals to that end.®’ On the question of inspection and verification, Strauss and the Commission were in accord with other commentators. Specifically, Strauss pre-

dicted that Stassen’s plan would place too great a burden on the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose goal would include establishing safeguards to prevent use of nuclear materials for military rather than peaceful uses. Here, John Foster Dulles was closest in agreement with the Commission. Stassen’s outline of an inspection and control system was so general, Dulles complained, that it did not provide the necessary details to evaluate the policy suggestions that should have been derived from the effectiveness of the inspection system itself.” At the tenth General Assembly of the United Nations, Henry Cabot Lodge echoed Dulles’s sentiments publicly. Inspection and control were the

central issues in disarmament, Lodge stated, and had been ever since 303 1946. Lodge emphasized that the problem had now become more difficult and urgent because large stocks of nuclear materials could be hidden beyond the range of any known detection device. Nevertheless, India’s delegate, V. K. Krishna Menon, introduced a resolution calling for the immediate suspension of nuclear testing. Although the General Assembly did not adopt the Indian resolution, it unanimously accepted one sponsored by the United States and seven other nations proposing that the United Nations establish a committee to study the effects of atomic radiation on human health. Thus, Lodge succeeded in his attempt to use a resolution to diffuse international anxiety over the health effects of radioactive fallout. By and large the American goals were achieved on December 16 when the General

Assembly, by a vote of 56 to 7, against Russian opposition, urged the Disarmament Commission’s subcommittee to give priority to such confidence-building measures as Eisenhower’s Open Skies plan and Bulganin’s ground inspection proposals while continuing to search for feasible measures that adequately safeguarded disarmament agreements.”! In the midst of the United Nations debate on disarmament Strauss urgently appealed to Eisenhower and Dulles not to endorse a test ban except as part of the final phase of disarmament negotiations. Strauss stated his unequivocal belief that the Soviet campaign for a testing moratorium was a “coldly calculated maneuver” to overcome America’s superiority in nuclear weapons. Although Strauss believed that the United States held a lead over the Soviet Union in nuclear weapon technology, in event of a test

ban he predicted that the Russians could overtake the United States through espionage, unimpeded research and development, and clandestine testing. Meanwhile the momentum and vitality of the American testing program would be lost. If a test moratorium were adopted as a first phase of disarmament, Strauss feared the Soviets would deliberately stall subse-

SEEDS OF ANXIETY

quent negotiations as a tactic to gain time for their own arms build-up. Even should the United States detect a violation of the test moratorium, Strauss believed it would be politically impossible to convince the world of Soviet duplicity in the face of denials from the Kremlin. Consequently, Strauss recommended aggressive opposition to a test ban until a “comprehensive program for the limitation of armaments” had been negotiated.” Strauss’s appeal contrasted sharply with that of Pope Pius XII. On December 24, 1955, the Roman Catholic pontiff called for an end to the nuclear arms race in his Christmas message to the world. According to the Pope, the great powers had to take three steps simultaneously: ban nuclear testing, outlaw the use of nuclear weapons, and control conventional armaments. The Pope’s plea to end nuclear testing embarrassed the Commission. For once, Strauss could not dismiss a proposal as politically or ideo-

logically motivated. In 1956 the question of a nuclear test ban would

304 become a pressing public issue.

CHAPTER 11

SAFEGUARDS, EKURATOM, AND THE

INTERNATIONAL AGENCY

According to Lewis Strauss’s recollection, President Eisenhower was the first head of state personally to operate a nuclear reactor. On July 20, 1955, in the midst of the historic Geneva summit meeting, the President visited the American research reactor assembled on the grounds of the Palais des Nations in preparation for the forthcoming conference on the peaceful uses of atomic energy. The reactor, which had been flown to Geneva from Oak Ridge, Tennessee, was the first nuclear reactor ever built in Western Europe. The President’s inspection of the pool-type reactor created unusual excitement among the reporters, who were given their first opportunity to get close to the President since the opening of the Big Four meeting. In the noise and confusion, reporters and photographers jostled one another for a vantage point and even had to be restrained from climbing the platform on top of the reactor itself. Inside the glass-enclosed control booth where the President was insulated from the crowd, Eisenhower gradually withdrew the control rods by pressing a button. Slowly power built up in the reactor—first to ten kilowatts and eventually to one hundred. ! The President was delighted. He had always wanted to witness a nuclear weapon test but had never thought it politically advisable to do so. At Geneva Eisenhower could publicly express his interest in nuclear technology without associating himself in the slightest with atomic weaponry. Watching the control panel where three red sticks simulated the movement

of the control rods, the President listened attentively while Oak Ridge scientists explained the principles of the controlled chain reaction, evidenced in the bottom of the cisternlike tank by the glow caused by the Cerenkov effect. At the conclusion of the demonstration, Eisenhower expressed his hope that private business and professional men throughout the

SAFEGUARDS

world would assist in finding ways to employ the peaceful atom. In the meantime, he was confident that the demonstration reactor would teach all who saw it “that there are really many, many ways in which atomic science can be used for the benefit of mankind and not destruction.” 2

THE DILEMMA OF PROMOTION AND CONTROL

As he stood at the controls of the first nuclear reactor exported to a foreign country, Eisenhower symbolized the dilemma of America’s Atomsfor-Peace program. The President fervently believed that the world was doomed unless it could find peaceful uses for atomic energy. But thoughtful Americans also realized that without satisfactory controls and safeguards, the peaceful atom, especially when employed in research and power reac-

306 tors or related technology, could also serve military purposes. During the two weeks of the 1955 Geneva peaceful uses conference several other po-

litical leaders and foreign scientists also operated the reactor under the watchful eyes of American technicians. It would be more difficult, however,

to control nuclear technology, once peaceful uses had been successfully promoted throughout the world.

In 1955 and 1956 the Atomic Energy Commission and the State Department, with the guidance of the National Security Council, attempted to balance the President’s Atoms-for-Peace policy against his determination

to end the nuclear arms race. To this end, the United States enthusiastically supported numerous approaches to developing the peaceful atom: “selling” the nuclear option at Geneva, making nuclear technology and reactors available abroad, negotiating bilateral agreements that would assist other nations, pushing for an international atomic energy agency, and achieving the preeminence of the United States in atomic energy matters, particularly with respect to the Soviet Union, but also in terms of Britain and France. All these endeavors would promote the President’s dream of redirecting nuclear research and resources from weapon activities to peaceful pursuits.

Nevertheless, under the President’s direction, the United States’ peaceful nuclear diplomacy was basically Europe-oriented. To some degree, the American policy was concerned with European and worldwide energy needs. The Suez crisis in fall 1956, and to a lesser extent the Hungarian revolution of the same year, would bolster Atoms for Peace by emphasizing Europe’s need to develop atomic energy as rapidly as possible as an alternative to Middle Eastern oil. For the most part, however, the policy was born in the Cold War and was designed primarily to supplement American military security. Following the precedent of the Marshall Plan, Atoms

for Peace was expected to forge even stronger economic and technical

SAFEGUARDS

bonds between Europe and North America. Atoms for Peace, if coupled with an enforceable international moratorium on weapon development, would allow the United States to guard its near-monopoly over the military atom while promoting the peaceful atom. At the same time, international control of atomic energy, a conflicting objective, required as much attention and effort as did promotion, even though nuclear management was less a topic for public discussion. If pro-

motion of peaceful uses would inevitably place nuclear technology into more hands, it followed that the proliferation of knowledge would also increase the possibilities that the technology could be used for military purposes inimical to American interests. By its nature, control of atomic energy was negative and thus less attractive as an instrument of foreign policy. For that reason, and because it had implications for national security, the control objective was necessarily less visible. But behind the scenes, and

to some extent in the public debate, control was a matter of serious concern 307 to American leaders. The problem was that international promotion and control of atomic energy were contradictory; the success of the one tended to hurt the cause of the other. After the Geneva conference the United States found it impos-

sible to follow a consistent and steady course toward Atoms for Peace. Rather, the path that led toward one goal inevitably required a recharting of steps to reach the other. Consequently the search for a consistent policy on peaceful uses was hampered by apparent indecision within the Administration confronted with conflicting proposals, disagreements, and confusion about goals. The turmoil and trials of the Atoms-for-Peace debates, however,

were from a larger perspective dramatic symptoms of the deep moral question with which American leaders were struggling at the time. The specter

of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and more recently the Bravo shot and the Lucky Dragon incident, cast a shadow over the American conscience. The ;

United States, in its drive to win World War II and save the world from totalitarianism, had developed the power of the atom for military purposes. Not until Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in ashes and the Lucky Dragon crew arrived in Yaizu, Japan, did the American people begin to understand the far-reaching implications of their accomplishments. Atoms for Peace was a sincere yet almost desperate effort to find some redeeming value in what seemed a uniquely American engineering triumph. This moral imperative provided a special incentive for the Atoms-for-Peace program. Without it, Atoms for Peace and Eisenhower's extraordinary dedication to that idea were not really understandable. At the same time, the sobering realities of thermonuclear warfare made international control of the atom a matter of paramount concern. The dilemma was that the two conflicting goals could not be separated.

SAFEGUARDS

LAUNCHING THE INTERNATIONAL AGENCY

On his return from Geneva, Gerard Smith observed that the scientific conference had confirmed American leadership in the peaceful uses of atomic energy while refuting the Soviet allegation that the United States had concentrated exclusively on military applications. Although American dominance in peaceful uses of atomic energy was not as great as its leadership in atomic weapons, the United States’ participation established a political fact that was expected to ease, somewhat, resistance to American economic promotion of nuclear energy.* Russian participation, however, had also been surprisingly strong, a fact noted by almost all American observers. Strauss and Libby, for example, reported that the Soviet Union had enjoyed disquieting success in training nuclear scientists and engineers.* Smith also recognized that the Geneva conference, by increasing 308 worldwide expectations for developing nuclear power, made it more difficult

for the United States to limit its assistance programs. As he noted, the echoes from Geneva called for deeds rather than more words in the field of peaceful atomic development.*® Realizing this fact, Commissioner Libby, on the last day of the Geneva conference, had outlined the steps already taken by the United States to implement Atoms for Peace. In addition to highlighting the various training programs sponsored by the Commission, Libby noted proudly that the United States had given the large technical library exhibited at the conference to the United Nations in Geneva. This same library, similar to a collection already presented to the European Center for Nuclear Research, would be provided to nations willing to share their collections of unclassified official papers.°

Although attracted by American training programs and libraries, most participants at the Geneva conference were more interested in obtain-

ing direct American assistance than in sponsoring multilateral controls through the International Atomic Energy Agency. During and immediately after the conference, Smith reported that the United States had been approached by several countries, including India, France, the Netherlands, Italy, and Australia, seeking agreements for cooperation to build power

reactors. In addition, the council of ministers of the European Coal and Steel Community had previously agreed in June 1955 to explore establish-

ing a European common market and to discuss preliminary plans for EURATOM, a multilateral organization that would integrate European atomic energy development. At this same time, in part responding to Eisenhower's speech at Pennsylvania State University, the Organization for European Economic Cooperation, established in 1948 under the Marshall Plan, appointed a working group to study European cooperation in the areas of nuclear power and distribution. ’ Even the Russians, according to Smith, had jumped on the peaceful uses “bandwagon.” To Smith’s surprise, politics were virtually absent from

SAFEGUARDS

the scientific conference. Smith suspected, however, that the freedom with which Russian scientists had discussed their specialities was less attributable to the “Spirit of Geneva” than to a prior decision by the Kremlin to ride the “surge” of world interest in peaceful uses of atomic energy. His interpretation was borne out, Smith believed, by the course of negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union on the International Atomic Energy Agency.®

Initially, the Russians opposed Eisenhower’s plan for the agency by arguing that promotion of nuclear power around the world could only follow

a ban on nuclear weapons because the widespread use of nuclear power would result in the proliferation of weapon-grade material. For its part, the Eisenhower Administration had contended that an “atomic pool” would siphon off weapon-grade material from national stockpiles, thus reducing theoretically the amount of enriched uranium available for nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, Eisenhower could hardly announce the Administration’s 309 subsequent position publicly without being accused of suggesting an atomic

pool solely for the purpose of gaining control over Soviet fissionable materials.”

Having decided to establish the international agency without the Soviet Union, the United States limited its discussions to seven countries that had either developed raw material resources or maintained advanced atomic energy programs—namely, the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Australia, Belgium, the Union of South Africa, and Portugal. Anxious for his Atoms-for-Peace initiative to bear fruit, Eisenhower had asked Ambassador Morehead Patterson on September 15, 1954,!° to negotiate the statute for the new agency while he also continued to conduct the bilateral negotiations. With Patterson responsible for both tasks, it had been evident that prior to the Geneva conference the Administration had not yet reconciled the inherent contradictions between international promotion and international control of atomic energy.

Patterson’s job was to establish the international agency as quickly as possible while coping with the complicated details in the agency statute. His strategy was to support a constitutionally broad statute embodying general principles, leaving to a later date the solution of more technical problems that might delay the agency’s establishment. Among the problems left for the agency itself to solve were the location of its headquarters and the functions it might assume under its broad grant of authority. On the basis

of a British draft, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada adopted an initial outline that was presented to the entire working group on March 29, 1955.!! It became clear as negotiations proceeded that, with the possible exception of France and Canada, and of course the United States, no member of the working group really wanted an international agency.” At this juncture only the United Kingdom might have been able to scuttle the project. With Patterson concurrently negotiating the bilateral

SAFEGUARDS

treaties, he assured the President that the British were not inclined to frus-

trate the American determination to implement Eisenhower's program. Also, Patterson successfully kept the points of disagreement between Washington and London to a minimum. He defined the agency’s mission so

broadly that both the United Kingdom and the United States could agree that the agency’s principal task would be to act as a clearinghouse rather than an effective regulator. Then on July 18, 1955, the Russians indicated their interest in join-

ing the discussions. As an expression of good faith, Moscow offered to deposit fifty kilograms of fissionable material with the new agency as soon as its charter was approved. This offer confirmed Premier Bulganin’s announcement made a few days earlier at the Geneva summit meeting that the Soviet Union would be willing to contribute fissionable materials. Despite their unexpected generosity, however, the Soviets also seemed to favor

310 a clearinghouse rather than a “banking” function for the international agency.’

DEFINING THE SAFEGUARD PROBLEM

As long as the Russians remained uninterested in the international agency, the control issue had not particularly troubled planners at the Commission or the State Department. Without Russian participation, in all likelihood there would be no international pool of nuclear materials requiring safeguards. It seemed that an effective system could be adequately established later on a bilateral basis. After the Soviet Union expressed a positive interest in joining the negotiations, however, the matter of controls took on new importance. From the outset, the Soviet Union had identified safeguards as

a principal concern in promoting international cooperation in peaceful uses. Originally, Americans suspected that the Russians had merely seized the issue as a means of obstructing negotiations, or even of gaining greater technical insight into the American atomic energy program. The evident seriousness of the Soviet position had been underscored, however, when the Russians earlier agreed to meet with a panel of experts, as suggested by the United States on November 3, 1954, primarily for the purpose of discussing technical issues. '* Thus, in winter and spring 1955, while the National Security Coun-

cil was hammering out its new policy on nuclear reactors abroad, the American Atoms-for-Peace initiative advanced on four broad but loosely coordinated fronts. As the Commission organized its exhibits and presentations for the peaceful uses conference in Geneva, Patterson was aggressively pursuing both bilateral and agency negotiations. Now with the Russians surprisingly receptive to a technical conference on safeguards, both

SAFEGUARDS

John Hall at the Commission and Gerard Smith at the State Department turned to drafting a tentative agenda for the proposed technical conference.

Already moving beyond the general policy on safeguards that the National Security Council would adopt, Hall had concluded in February 1955 that the size and number of research reactors requiring supervision from the international agency would be small. Furthermore, the stocks of weapon-grade material produced by the operation of research reactors would not be appreciably increased (and might well be slightly reduced). Nevertheless, some international supervision over the fabrication and reprocessing of fuel elements, even from research reactors, would be required

to insure that the materials were not diverted for unauthorized purposes. More important, although the United States might not export power reactors for years, Hall realized that the Commission could no longer postpone formulating a comprehensive safeguard strategy.

Unhappily, the operation of large-scale power reactors would pose 31] difficult control problems. For example, Hall pointed out to the State Department that reactors fueled with slightly enriched uranium produced significant quantities of plutonium, which could be diverted to weapons. In addition, it would be necessary to insure that neither thorium nor natural uranium was surreptitiously placed in the reactor for the production of uranium-233 or plutonium. In cases where power reactors were fueled by plutonium, uranium-233, or highly enriched uranium-235, safeguards would be required to prevent diversion of fuel in all stages of the fuel cycle from shipment and loading through removal and reprocessing. Consequently, Hall warned, the international agency would have to exercise very close supervision over reactor design, construction, and operation, maintaining even more stringent controls over preparation and extraction of fissionable materials. !° On April 14, 1955, in the midst of feverish preparations for Geneva, the United States finally suggested a tentative agenda for the technical dis-

cussion of safeguards. The Russians did not accept the American agenda until they simultaneously expressed their interest in participating in the international agency on July 19, just three weeks before the peaceful uses conference opened. Moving now with unusual swiftness, the State Department, with Commission concurrence, proposed that preliminary technical discussions on safeguards be conducted at the close of the peaceful uses conference. Although Strauss was worried that the safeguard discussions followed too closely after the larger scientific conference, the Commission consented to provide necessary technical support with the understanding that the talks would last no more than five days and would be scrupulously confined to technical issues, excluding all references to either the organization and the function of the international agency or disarmament. '° Initially, the Soviets asserted that peaceful applications would in

SAFEGUARDS

fact increase the world’s supply of weapon-grade materials. Although this fact was obviously true in a technical sense, no one was certain what kinds of specific controls would be required to prevent unauthorized diversion.

In view of the short time available to prepare for the talks scheduled to begin on August 22, the Commission found itself confronted with several serious questions of tactics. For instance, concrete discussions of procedures for safeguarding advanced reactors might well instruct Russian scientists on the status of American programs, both peaceful and military. Furthermore, to outline prematurely the extent to which maximum assurance against diversion of materials would require supervision over design, con-

struction, and operation of the reactors as well as the preparation and possession of fissionable materials might well discourage “have-not” nations from joining the international agency. Most embarrassing, perhaps, was the fact that the Commission itself had considered the matter only

312 theoretically. '

General advisory committee chairman Isidor [. Rabi, already in Geneva attending the peaceful uses conference, was not officially appointed

head of the American delegation until August 19, three days before the first technical session. Just three days before that, the Americans had assembled in Geneva to develop a technical position on monitoring power reactors. Rabi’s group was instructed to explore with representatives from the Soviet Union, Canada, France, Czechoslovakia, and the United Kingdom technical safeguards that emphasized physical security of fissionable materials and detection of procedural violations as established by the international agency.'® From the distinguished American delegation then present in Geneva, Rabi was able to obtain advice or assistance from Commis-

sioner Libby, Warren C. Johnson, Eugene P. Wigner, and Richard W. Dodson, members of the general advisory committee; W. Kenneth Davis, director, division of reactor development; Alvin M. Weinberg, director, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Walter H. Zinn, director, Argonne National Laboratory; several other top scientists from Oak Ridge and Argonne;

and Gerard Smith, representing the State Department. The group agreed that continuous monitoring of small reactors might be feasible, but it conceded that it would be difficult to monitor large power reactors. Safeguarding fuel element fabrication posed an even greater problem, while satisfactory monitoring of chemical reprocessing was the most difficult, if not impossible, task. By and large, Rabi’s working group advocated a stringent system of inspection and detection supported by tight physical security, accounting, and “leak” monitoring procedures. !”

Consensus was frustrated, however, when Zinn expressed skepticism that the proposed “system” was practical. Zinn vigorously challenged the group’s position, stating that most techniques attempting to trace elements through the fuel fabrication and reprocessing cycle were unreliable. He conceded that a material accounting system, based on the United States

SAFEGUARDS

model, might be feasible for safeguarding reactors. Yet even if adequate inspection and accounting procedures were technically possible, he thought the proposed safeguard plan “would require a tremendously complicated, elaborate, irritating, and expensive physical security system.” Zinn predicted that the cost of maintaining such a system would place a severe economic burden on power production, perhaps doubling operating costs beyond the purchase of expensive nuclear fuel. Besides, Zinn concluded, “physical security is notoriously difficult and uncertain.” 7° Although not everyone agreed with Zinn, his critique of the safeguard proposals only five days prior to the technical conference’s opening revealed to American scientists that the United States did not have a comprehensive plan it could confidently defend. In order to have something concrete to present to the technical conference, Zinn and others met in closed hotel rooms, usually at night, to thrash out a new American proposal for safeguarding the fuel cycle.?! They discussed various means of tagging 313 or “spiking” fissionable materials with an energetic gamma emitter so that the flow of nuclear fuel could be tracked through both the fabrication and reprocessing steps. The advantage of using an energetic gamma emitter over other tracing elements was that it would be almost impossible to shield

the tagged fuel from detection. The American scheme, conceived in a Geneva hotel room, would use uranium-232, which decayed with the emis-

sion of a sufficiently “hard” gamma ray so that instruments, rather than personal search, might insure that what passed into the system eventually returned.”

GENEVA SAFEGUARD CONFERENCE

On August 22, 1955, the opening day of the technical conference, Rabi was tired, a little irritable, and perhaps somewhat anxious. In preliminary discussions, Rabi had not succeeded in convincing the British of the need for infallible controls, nor was he certain that the British would support the tracer idea.*? Indeed, the American proposal was so novel that when Dmitrii V. Skobel’tsyn, head of the Russian delegation, first learned of it on the morning of August 22 he was unfamiliar with the decay chain of uranium-232. Incredibly, the United States proposal would receive its first systematic analysis during the course of the six-nation conference. *

The American position presented by Rabi described a system of physical security supplemented by accounting procedures and detailed knowledge of plant configuration and operation. Although Rabi admitted it was extremely difficult to account for all material within a given site at a given time, a properly designed system would prevent unauthorized mate-

rials from entering or escaping the site. In the Americans’ opinion, accounting systems were essentially supplementary; therefore, the tagging

SAFEGUARDS

scheme was not intended to assist quantitative control but to facilitate security at a control point.” Throughout the five-day conference, Skobel’tsyn pressed Rabi for details and concrete examples of how the American system, and especially the

tagging idea, would work. The Russians’ most aggressive questioning focused on the “dead period” in the decay chain of uranium-232. Skobel’tsyn noted that neither uranium-232 nor its daughter element thorium-228 are hard gamma emitters; not until the decay chain reached radium-224 would a sufficiently energetic gamma be released. Thus, if the thorium were removed by chemical separation, the marker would disappear for a considerable time. Although the Russians did not flatly reject the American idea, Skobel’tsyn was clearly skeptical that “spiking” would materially advance safeguard procedures. The main difficulty with the American proposals, Skobel’tsyn intimated, was that they relied too heavily on physical security 314 (and consequently inspection) without providing effective quantitative controls for nuclear materials.”°

The Russians were also disturbed by the fact that the American proposals were comparatively short range. In his opening remarks, Rabi stated that the intention of the safeguards was “to prevent diversion of sufficient amounts of nuclear material to constitute a hazard to world peace within a reasonable time, such as ten years.” Skobel’tsyn questioned Rabi closely as to what the United States meant by this ten-year forecast. Rabi replied, somewhat vaguely, that the United States could not predict what technical developments might take place over the subsequent decade. In any system of inspection and control, Rabi admitted, there was always a possibility, because all human effort is fallible, of some sort of diversion. The United States sought a period of reasonable assurance, Rabi explained.

“Ten years, it seemed to us, was a nice round number. . . . Clearly, one year is too short and one hundred years too long.” 7!

SAFEGUARDS REEVALUATED

If the peaceful uses conference had been a brilliant success, the discussions of safeguards proved something of a disaster. On their return from Geneva the Americans realized they no longer had an adequate safeguard policy. Smith candidly noted that the United States government had only a limited appreciation of the safeguard issue. The technology discussed at Geneva was, after all, common to both military and peaceful uses. As nations developed independent competence in nuclear power generation, they also became potential producers of atomic weapons; Smith emphasized that the Administration had not yet squarely confronted this major security problem. 78

Although Smith had not entirely given up on the “spiking” tech-

SAFEGUARDS

nique, he observed that the talks had compelled the United States “to consider a number of difficult technical problems which will have to be solved if U.S. participation in an international atomic energy agency is to be consistent with U.S. security.”?? It was the first hint from the Department of State that United States membership in the international agency depended

upon a successful technical solution to the safeguard problem. Indeed, Smith was even convinced that the safeguard issue should be resolved be-

fore the United States supported the construction of any nuclear power plants abroad on a bilateral basis. The next step, Smith recommended, should be an engineering study that developed the United States’ technical control plan in greater detail.°° As Smith advised Dulles, Rabi had already suggested such an engineering study to Strauss. Rabi had returned from the safeguard conference no less shaken than Smith. Although he continued to believe that the

American policy based on physical security supplemented by accounting 315 procedures was feasible, Rabi stated that more data were necessary to make the American position secure. With W. Kenneth Davis, he bluntly informed Strauss that it was a matter of highest priority for the Commission to sponsor scientific and engineering studies on safeguard techniques before another

such conference was held.?! The Russians had been nit-picking, almost inquisitorially, Rabi felt, and had steadfastly refused to offer a safeguard proposal of their own. Still, the talks had been surprisingly free of politics; the Russians were especially careful to avoid any direct conflict so that the door would be left open for later agreement. In retrospect, both the United States and the Soviet Union had been unprepared for serious technical discussions.” Despite inadequate technical planning, Rabi was confident in the strength of the American position—in terms of both the United States’ near-monopoly of enriched materials and its ability to lend technological assistance. Unless the United States established firm controls to begin with,

the situation would “shortly get out of control,” Rabi predicted. Furthermore, he was confident that the United States and the Soviet Union shared a community of interest. Thus, he agreed with Smith that further planning for the international agency required technical engineering study by the Commission, accompanied by parallel political study on the feasibility of controlling diversion.**

For the engineering study, the Commission asked the Vitro Corporation to analyze the technical and economic limits of safeguard controls, to evaluate control techniques, and to recommend the best procedures to the Commission. Libby, who claimed credit for the “spiking” idea, was particularly anxious that the Vitro study be completed in time to assist American negotiators at the working conference drafting the international agency statute.** Unfortunately, the final Vitro report in September 1956 offered the Commission little technical comfort. Even with a 90 percent

SAFEGUARDS

probability of detecting unauthorized diversion of nuclear materials, Vitro

estimated that within five years it would be possible to divert sufficient plutonium from a power reactor to build an atomic bomb. From a technical perspective, Vitro’s conclusions questioned “the feasibility of any control scheme except for the initial years of operation.” *° It became more and more apparent to both the Commission and the State Department that solutions would have to be political and diplomatic

as well as technological. At the request of the Commission, the general manager appointed a broadly representative special task force to delineate policy issues relating to power reactor development at home and abroad. The task force subsequently reported that there was a “grave military problem inescapably bound up with the advancement of the atoms-for-peace

program,” especially as it related to building power reactors in foreign countries. The task force virtually conceded that any large or rich nation 316 with sufficient commitment could eventually build a nuclear arsenal. More shocking was the conclusion, which the Russians had warned of all along, that Atoms for Peace might actually contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons among underdeveloped or small countries.*° Among its findings the Commission’s task force concluded in December 1955 that the National Security Council’s policy on safeguards was deficient in several respects. The National Security Council, anxious to woo potential customers away from the less restrictive Soviet Union or United Kingdom, had not examined how the United States would prevent the direct diversion of nuclear materials from power reactors. Furthermore, the coun-

cil had failed to realize that direct diversion was not the most important source of a weapon potential. Rather, the task force noted, large quantities of fissionable material could be obtained from a blanket of readily available natural uranium or thorium that could capture neutrons escaping from the reactor core. Anticipating the Vitro study, the task force also doubted that the United States could achieve absolute protection against diversion. Even maximum assurance could be obtained only with an intensive and complete inspection system that included access to “all facilities, areas, and records of the country, and rights of unlimited aerial photography.” ?’ Obviously, such a safeguard system would entail an unprecedented infringement upon governmental, industrial, and personal privacy, unacceptable to both the United States and other countries. In stark terms, the task force outlined the dimensions of the diver-

sion problem. It was unlikely that fuel rods limited in enrichment to 10 percent would be diverted directly to weapon production. Rather, direct diversion would likely involve plutonium generated either in the fuel rods or more subtly in a blanket of natural uranium. If a foreign power reactor generated 100 megawatts of electric power, roughly 100 kilograms of plutonium could be produced each year. The most stringent controls involving round-the-clock surveillance of the facility would be required to prevent

SAFEGUARDS

the diversion of 15 to 20 percent of the plutonium produced, enough to build several nuclear bombs per year. In order to monitor a moderate-sized

chemical plant employing two hundred workers on a twenty-four-hour shift, the staff estimated a full-time force of forty inspectors would be required. But even then the task force conceded “that a practical control system which accounts completely for all fissionable materials cannot be

devised.”

Despite its pessimism about the feasibility of safeguard systems, the task force did not regard diversion of special nuclear materials as the most serious danger of proliferation. By far the greatest threat to international security resulting from the Atoms-for-Peace program came from training nuclear scientists and engineers in reactor construction and operation and in the technology of plutonium separation. Likewise, engineers and reactor technicians trained in nuclear power plants could be diverted to the con-

struction and operation of plutonium production reactors using natural 317 uranium.”*?

THE RISKS OF ATOMS FOR PEACE

Ironically, the Atoms-for-Peace program, designed originally to circumvent the stalled disarmament talks, now confronted the old problems of inspection and control. The Russians, of course, had argued all along that Atomsfor-Peace discussions could not be conducted separately from disarmament

considerations. The Americans, however, had assumed that peaceful development of atomic energy need not wait on disarmament because safeguards could be established to protect against nuclear proliferation. In the wake of the safeguard conference, when the Russians had finally abandoned their insistence on linking disarmament and peaceful uses negotiations, American officials admitted to themselves that the two issues were more closely related than they had earlier supposed. A basic difference, as Smith pointed out, was that safeguarding disarmament required universal control over international atomic energy programs, while detecting diversion from peaceful activities demanded, to a degree, less comprehensive measures.” But the tasks were similar, the chances of success were about the same, and the risks incurred differed only in magnitude. Given the Commission’s awareness in fall 1955 that atoms for peace could also provide atoms for war, did no one express serious reservations about the President’s program? Actually John Hall met the question headon: “In these circumstances, should the U.S. withdraw from its announced intention of furthering atoms-for-peace throughout the world?” The answer was Clearly, “No!” The reasons given were not confined to the fact that a retreat from Eisenhower's offer would involve a serious loss of face for the President. Rather, withdrawal by the United States, according to the re-

SAFEGUARDS

port, would merely leave the field open to the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and perhaps Canada, causing the United States to default on its political and economic advantages while watching the danger arise anyway.

The problem, as defined at this time, was not how to abandon the goals set forth by the President before the United Nations but how to devise a way of achieving them that minimized the proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout the world.*! In December 1955, with Hall and Smith unable to resolve all differences of opinion, the Commission formally debated the safeguard issue. In

view of the uncertainties, Libby inquired, was the United States firmly committed to “atomic foreign power?” Strauss thought “committed” was too strong a word; rather, the United States was “dedicated” to the worldwide use of atomic energy, carefully safeguarded. Should adequate safeguards

prove impractical, the entire program would have to be restudied, the 318 chairman believed. That was just the point, Libby asserted. “You see, sir, I rather think we are in that position.” ” For Libby, it was clear that even if a “perfect” safeguard system could be devised, it would be too expensive to be practical. He concluded, therefore, that the Commission should not delude itself by pursuing such an impossible goal.

Commissioner John von Neumann believed that international inspection and control should be administered by the international agency so that the onus of enforcement would not fall on the United States. Libby agreed and further suggested that inspections required under United States bilateral power cooperation agreements be conducted by the agency. Apparently believing that inspections were inconsequential anyway, Libby was inclined to rely upon atmospheric detection of weapon testing as the primary means of determining whether a nation was developing nuclear weapons. The Commissioners discussed at length the difficulties of conducting broad and elaborate inspections, as well as the problems of administering such an inspection system and insuring its long-term success. Von Neumann, supported by several staff members, even wondered about the practical wisdom of expecting the agency to fulfill these functions. Having called into question the United States’ safeguard policy, the Commission decided to bring the matter to the President’s attention rather than to proceed with further attempts to reach agreement with the State Department. To this end, Strauss suggested that Hall prepare a study outlining the major questions that should be presented to Fisenhower.* In response, Hall noted that safeguards had not even been a major issue just six months before. He outlined options short of canceling the Atoms-for-Peace program. First, Hall insisted that the Umited States pursue a consistent safeguard policy in considering the international agency and

bilateral cooperation agreements. If the United States and other “have” countries freely entered into bilateral arrangements in competition not only

SAFEGUARDS

with each other but also with the international agency, the prospects of the agency’s playing a major role as supplier of fissionable materials were remote. This difficulty could only be removed if to some extent all subsequent cooperation agreements were brought under the aegis of the international agency. To be effective, however, control required consensus among the “haves” that some measure of inspection was required in any agreement to supply nuclear materials. Thereafter, Hall reviewed the political difficulties in establishing a control system. It would be hard to convince recipient nations to accept control and inspection in any form, especially if the supplying countries were not subject to similar controls. Because the efficacy of any system of control would have limited duration, a double standard between “have” and formerly “have-not” nations would be untenable within a decade. But, Hall emphasized, the bargaining position of the “haves” was at its maximum in

1956. If the nuclear powers formed a united front by insisting on controls 319 as a prerequisite of assistance in any form, the “have-nots” might be willing to accept them. Moreover, a worldwide control system might be welcomed by nonnuclear powers as insurance against an atomic arms race with their neighbors. Although any inspection system would involve some sacrifice of

national sovereignty, recipient nations were far more likely to accept examination by personnel of an agency of which they were members than they were to submit to inspection by a major power.“

How much control would be required, of course, was the salient issue. Hall thought it impossible for the international agency to require maximum assurance; that is, nations must pledge not to engage in the production of nuclear weapons, and they must permit large numbers of inspectors to go anywhere at any time to assure themselves that forbidden activity

was not occurring. More practically, he speculated that the agency could require participating countries not to produce nuclear weapons or to engage in “sensitive” operations, and to allow intensive inspection of other areas for purposes of spot checking.” The Commissioners generally agreed with Hall’s analysis. They were now willing to take “a calculated risk” by providing nuclear materials for reallocation by the agency. Reemphasizing the expense of a comprehensive

system, Libby was willing to compromise on an inspection system that might not be completely diversion-proof. In order to achieve the Commission’s goal of installing one million kilowatts of power reactor capacity in foreign countries by the early 1960s, certain risks would have to be taken.” The risks, however, were uncertain and incalculable at this time. In January 1956 the Commission was confident that it had auspiciously and safely launched the President’s Atoms-for-Peace program as a major, posi-

tive element in United States foreign policy. At the State Department, Smith conceded that the Atoms-for-Peace program had been successful

SAFEGUARDS

psychologically, but he warned that the Commission had also created expectations about nuclear power and American assistance that would be hard to realize. Although American firms were already announcing plans for substantial nuclear power facilities, including an 11,000-kilowatt reactor that Westinghouse was scheduled to build for the Brussels World’s Fair, Smith predicted that unfavorable economics would slow the pace of nuclear power development. Given the serious problems of safety, security, and the availability of nuclear fuel, which would take some time to solve, Smith believed the economic disincentives were fortuitous. “For most countries,” he noted, “right now training is the most important assistance.” *’

EURATOM—THE GRAND DESIGN

320 The time and attention devoted to the numerous bilateral cooperation agreements and to international cooperation and control through the International Atomic Energy Agency, however, did not reveal the main thrust of America’s peaceful atomic diplomacy. In fact, under direction from Presi-

dent Eisenhower, the United States placed its greatest support behind EURATOM, the European Atomic Energy Community embracing France, West Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg. As envisioned in 1956, EURATOM would develop an atomic energy industry similar to the European Coal and Steel Community. Although EURA’®OM would finance and coordinate research and development, it was primarily designed to promote generation of electrical power for industrial uses. With European coal production on the decline and the best hydroelectric sites already exploited, in the long run nuclear energy seemed to offer Europe its only indigenous source of industrial power.* Even that was somewhat limited by Europe’s uranium resources unless supplemented by the United States. Of course, the Administration also expected American industry to profit from the sale of nuclear hardware to the EURATOM group. Officially, the United States continued to support all approaches related to the international development of the peaceful atom—the international agency and bilaterals as well as the Organization of European Economic Cooperation (OQEEC) and other regional associations—but under

directions from President Eisenhower the major attention was given to EURATOM.® The President’s determination to give EURATOM priority created severe strain between the Commission and the State Department throughout 1956 and gave credence to the charges that the Commission was “dragging its feet” on implementing Atoms for Peace. On January 25, 1956, Dulles explained to the Commissioners the

political factors underlying the President’s desire, and incidentally his own, to promote European integration in the peaceful uses of atomic energy

SAFEGUARDS

through the EURATOM approach. Eisenhower firmly believed that the unification of Europe along the lines of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Brussels Pact, and the Coal and Steel Community was a prerequisite to a stable Western alliance and world peace. With the collapse of the European Defense Community, Eisenhower hoped to draw France and Germany together into a strong bulwark against the Soviet Union by giving American

support to EURATOM. Additionally, Eisenhower thought EURATOM might well catch the imagination of the West Germans. Once European skills, resources, and purposes were channeled through EURATOM, the “burden of Europe” could be lifted from the “back of the United States” even if the United Kingdom did not participate in the European pool. According to Dulles, Eisenhower had first given “eloquent expression” to his vision of European unification in a speech to the English Speaking Union at London in 1951.°° By 1956, only the Community of Six offered promise

of opening the way to a genuine United States of Europe. If EURATOM 32 | succeeded, Dulles continued, the community could then proceed to other fields of activity. But if it failed, the integration movement itself would probably fall apart with little hope that it could be reconstituted, a possibility that presented a bleak outlook for the future.*! Dulles emphasized that the Atomic Energy Commission bore the responsibility for handling the technical aspects of the Atoms-for-Peace program, but in view of the McKinney report he also wanted the Commission to study the proposals in the broadest perspective. Anticipating legal and other objections from the Commission, Dulles asked the Commissioners not to think in terms of existing laws, regulations, or inhibitions but rather to define in maximum terms what lay within the realm of possibility. He reminded the Commissioners that if the Atomic Energy Act turned out to impede American support of EURATOM, then the law could be amended. In any event, because Congress supported European integration more vigorously than the Executive Branch itself, Dulles was confident Congress would approve a sound and prudent program sponsored by the Atomic Energy Commission. Livingston Merchant, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, punctuated the Secretary’s remarks by concluding that the Europeans were evidently determined to achieve atomic inde-

pendence with or without the help of the United States. In that sense, American assistance to the Europeans was a wasting asset that bureaucratic dawdling could fritter away.”

THE COMMISSION DISSENTS

Dulles’s remarks were undoubtedly aimed directly at Lewis Strauss as well as the Commission. The Secretary’s atomic energy advisers, principally

SAFEGUARDS

Smith, believed that Strauss was not fully sympathetic to the Administration's EURATOM policy. Although no one within the Administration publicly accused Strauss of thwarting the program, Smith and others were frustrated over the United States’ failure to exploit fully its leadership in atomic energy affairs because the Department of State and the Commission had not spoken with one voice. How could Europeans or the American public know what the United States wanted when the State Department pressed for a supranational organization of atomic energy programs in Europe while the Atomic Energy Commission simultaneously encouraged the same European nations to come forward for bilateral negotiations? * Indeed, initial discussions of EURATOM at the Commission had raised the question of whether the United States could execute an agreement for cooperation with a group of European nations under Section 124 of the Atomic Energy Act. Obviously, such confusion provided ideal fuel for the political fires lit by the 322 McKinney panel report and ultimately fanned by Anderson and Kefauver.™ In reply to Dulles, Strauss was forthright in stating the Commission’s reservations about EURATOM. The Commission had already expressed considerable willingness to compromise on the safeguard issue, at least with respect to the proposed International Atomic Energy Agency. The Commission’s comparative flexibility on the international agency had enabled the State Department to plan for the twelve-nation working conference—now including the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, India, and Brazil—scheduled to convene in Washington on February 27, 1956, to consider the latest draft statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Strauss, however, was troubled that the United States by treaty would have to supply special nuclear material and technology to an entity that would not be a member of the international agency. More than likely, Strauss believed, an agreement with EURATOM would provide for transfer of classified information as well as nuclear materials. Under existing laws and regulations, the Commission had been unable to execute a power bi-

lateral with France because French security procedures did not meet American standards. In negotiating a security agreement with EFURATOM, Strauss observed, the United States might find that the Europeans insisted upon restrictions no greater than those acceptable to the French. Furthermore, to counter Dulles’s veiled criticism, Strauss reported that the Com-

mission objected to any “foot dragging” in the handling of the bilateral negotiations, but he assured Dulles he would cooperate with the State Department “to the hilt” within the legal limit.®* With Eisenhower's directive backing him up, however, Dulles reiterated his request to the Commission

that it not now concern itself with legal problems in order to consider all suggestions for United States cooperation, leaving for subsequent determination any decisions concerning what was safe, prudent, and lawful for the

United States. lronically, it became more and more difficult to distinguish “hard-

SAFEGUARDS

liners” from “softliners” on the safeguards and control issue. The Commission had been toughest on its stand concerning EFURATOM given the like-

lihood that the industrialized nations, especially France, would obtain technical information that would directly aid weapon programs. Surprisingly, the Commission was not nearly so nervous about the [International Atomic Energy Agency, no doubt because the agency would provide no competition, either commercially or militarily, to the United States. At a high-level meeting including Dulles and Strauss on February 3, Smith stated that the United States faced two basic policy choices concerning the international agency: whether to maintain limited controls designed to prevent diversion of nuclear materials for military purposes or whether to proscribe “fourth countries” from developing nuclear weapons. Strauss quickly responded that in the Commission’s view, the international agency should require only minimum controls. The so-called “no-weapons pledge” that

Smith sought would not be feasible, particularly because France would not 323 accept it. More to the point, perhaps, Strauss observed that the United States would not accept sufficiently strict inspection and control of its own programs to satisfy prudent requirements for safeguards abroad.*' Arguing for strict controls, Harold E. Stassen, special assistant to

the President on disarmament, believed the United States should try to prevent or retard the development of nuclear weapons in “fourth countries.” From Stassen’s perspective, the Americans should sponsor a comprehensive control system and let the Soviet Union bear the onus of rejection. In

addition, Smith pointed out that the minimum controls advocated by the Commission might simply allow recipient nations to pursue peaceful uses with resources of the international agency while developing nuclear weapons of their own. In return for the “no-weapons pledge,” Smith suggested that the United States should promise not to use plutonium recovered from foreign power reactors for military purposes. Dulles, however, in support of Strauss, stated that it would be difhcult to convince nations to forego permanently their right to build nuclear weapons while the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom continued to make them. Furthermore, he was convinced that countries would not join the international agency if they were required to commit

themselves to forego nuclear weapons for all time. The best the United States could do, Dulles thought, was to ask participating countries, as a matter of self-denial, not to complicate nuclear disarmament negotiations by manufacturing atomic weapons while the great powers tried to bring their own stockpiles under control.*® Essentially, Dulles supported the Commission’s position on safeguards, which required high reliance on the integrity

of the nations participating in the international agency not to engage in clandestine nuclear weapon development. In order to exploit America’s “wasting asset” of nuclear technology while its bargaining position was relatively strong and to fulfill the President’s unswerving determination to

SAFEGUARDS

find a peaceful alternative to the military atom, there seemed no choice but to plunge ahead with the Atoms-for-Peace program. Toward this end, Eisenhower in February 1956 agreed to a second allocation of 20,000 kilograms of uranium-235, this time for foreign distribution.®” The purpose was to implement the bilateral agreements, but the allocation also provided the President an opportunity to endorse both the international agency and EURATOM. Yet even as the Administration took steps to accelerate its promotion of international nuclear power, the Com-

mission warned Eisenhower of the proliferation dangers inherent in the Atoms-for-Peace program. In a forceful letter written just two days before the public announcement of the allocation, Strauss expressed the Commission’s apprehension. “The Commission wishes to point out,” he wrote the President on February 20, “that the transfer of U-235 abroad and the subsequent production of fissionable material in power reactors increases the 324, possibility of the development of weapon potential by those who receive our

assistance.’ Nevertheless, having discharged its duty to warn the President, the Commission also expressed its determination to require “as a minimum, assurances and guarantees against diversion to other than peace-

ful uses.”

Reluctantly, the Commission fell in behind the Administration’s policy as ordered by the President and the Secretary of State, who would assume leadership in formulating Eisenhower’s nuclear foreign policy during the forthcoming election campaign. Although Strauss still functioned as the President’s special adviser on atomic energy, Strauss, after EURATOM became a cornerstone of Eisenhower’s grand design for a United States of Europe, increasingly relayed only technical and administrative assistance offered by the Commission. Even after the President had allocated 20,000 kilograms of uranium-235 for foreign power and research programs, Strauss, speaking for the Commission, insisted on two caveats: first, the Commission was not committed to specific programs such as EURATOM without additional discussion with the State Department, because, second, the Commission doubted that all proposals conformed with the Atomic Energy Act and National Security Council directives.°! When Eisenhower presented his Atoms-for-Peace proposals to the United Nations on December 8, 1953, he had prefaced his remarks with the observation that the world lived under the threat of nuclear danger—“a danger shared by all.” The peaceful atom pointed the way “out of the dark chamber of horrors into the light. . . by which the minds of men, the hopes of men, the souls of men everywhere, can move forward toward peace and happiness and well being.” As he reflected on the world’s collective hopes and fears for atomic energy, even Eisenhower could not have known just how prophetic he would be in his warning of universal dangers from atomic energy. In the aftermath of the Castle-Bravo shot, even as the President

SAFEGUARDS

vigorously championed his Atoms-for-Peace program, the specter of global

contamination from radioactive fallout revealed still another peril in the nuclear chamber of horrors from which Eisenhower sought escape. The light, toward which the President resolutely strode, was shadowed by an ominous radioactive cloud.

325

CHAPTER 12

NUCLEAR ISSUES:

A TIME FOR DECISION

By the end of 1955 the Atomic Energy Commission and the Eisenhower Administration faced a wide range of policy issues that had emerged from efforts to develop nuclear energy for both peaceful and military purposes. On the military side, Cold War rhetoric continued to justify high priorities for developing and testing nuclear weapons, but the increasing tempo of atmospheric weapon tests both in Nevada and the Pacific had generated worldwide concerns over the dangers of radioactive fallout. Even more ominous was the specter of the thermonuclear weapon with its incredible po-

tential for physical destruction and radioactive contamination. The enormity of this threat highlighted the difficult moral issues that had been created with the atomic bomb in 1945. Growing anxieties throughout the world and the rising sensitivity to the moral implications of nuclear warfare placed greater pressures on American leaders to consider both the feasibility of a nuclear test ban and the negotiation of nuclear disarmament. Similar kinds of issues had arisen in the public consciousness since 1945 on the peaceful uses of the atom. The search for redeeming values in nuclear technology had prompted generous expenditures of public funds to develop various applications of radioisotopes in industry, agriculture, and

medicine; some had been successful, but none had yet produced revolutionary effects. The greatest hope for peaceful applications was still nuclear

power, but the dream of a cheap, clean, and reliable nuclear system still proved elusive. Thus, the old questions of the proper role of the federal government in developing nuclear power still remained to be answered. No issue raised in the military or peaceful side was new. The Commission and the Eisenhower Administration had been struggling with the issues for three years, but in January 1956 they were taking a new dimension. By becoming more and more public issues of concern to people in everyday life, they were not just esoteric questions for high-level councils

A TIME FOR DECISION

of government. In the face of this growing public concern the Commission and the Administration felt increasing pressure to resolve some of these long-standing conundrums. That 1956 was an election year promised to stimulate political debate of nuclear issues, and, as the months wore on, it

became more evident that for the first time in American history nuclear matters would gain prominence in a presidential campaign.

THE POLITICS OF NUCLEAR POWER

In 1955 Lewis Strauss had seen the Geneva conference as a triumph for both the American people and the Republican Administration, but, in fact, the conference had not provided the Commission with an enduring claim to superiority in power reactor technology. Within a matter of weeks after the

conference the British made clear that Calder Hall, to be completed in 327 1956, would be only the first step in a startlingly ambitious plan to build twelve full-size nuclear power plants in Britain within a decade. When completed the nuclear complex was expected to produce 40 percent of Brit-

ish needs. In contrast, the first American plant, at Shippingport, would produce only 60,000 kilowatts and would not come on-line until 1957. Because the Americans would be relying on private industry to build nuclear power plants, there was no way that the Commission could commit itself to the British rate of nuclear power growth, or to any rate for that matter. By comparison, the Commission’s predictions seemed little more than wishful thinking or the inflated claims of private industry. For Senator Anderson, Congressman Holifield, and other Democrats on the Joint Committee, Strauss’s endorsement of industry’s claims made them even less believable. In supporting the Dixon-Yates contract in 1954, Strauss had

demonstrated to the satisfaction of Anderson and others his prejudice against public power. Anderson suggested that Strauss was working handin-glove with industry to thwart government projects. !

THE MCKINNEY REPORT

For months Anderson had been planning to make nuclear power a central issue when Congress reconvened in January 1956. By this time Robert McKinney and his panel had completed their report on the potential impact of the peaceful uses of atomic energy. The panel, appointed in March 1955, had been charged to make a nonpartisan study of nuclear policy, but from the beginning Anderson expected the group to lay the foundation for atomic

energy planks in the Democratic platform for the 1956 campaign. This ulterior motive, however, scarcely influenced the outcome. McKinney assembled a competent staff that worked diligently for the better part of a year

A TIME FOR DECISION

with full cooperation from the Commission. The general manager funded a contract to support research for the panel and later estimated that the Commission’s headquarters staff spent more than one thousand hours on the project.? The panel’s report in January 1956 did not criticize the Commission’s efforts in reactor development as far as they went. McKinney and his colleagues, however, expressed strong doubts that the efforts of the Commission and private industry would be sufficient to develop nuclear power as fast as national security demanded. In that case, McKinney argued, “the Commission should support expeditious development, if necessary, even up to and including construction of one ‘demonstration’ plant of each major reactor size and type with public funds.” This statement brought McKinney back to the position that Holifield, Price, and other Congressional Democrats had been holding for years. Even more, the report added fuel to the

328 fire for a government-financed reactor program by setting forth assumptions about future national energy needs that constituted a dramatic imperative for quick action. “The growth of electric power,” the report stated, “expresses in one simple index the American miracle of productivity and living standards.” Thus, nuclear power could well be the key to the nation’s economic future and “the most tangible symbol of America’s will to peace.” Forecasts of the annual growth rate of electrical generating capacity ranged

from 4.9 to 7.5 percent over the next two decades. “The prospect of an indefinitely expanding national economy which may require as much as 600 million kilowatts of installed electric-generating capacity or more by 1980” seemed to give nuclear power a high priority.* The panel also surveyed a wide range of other activities, including controlled thermonuclear energy, the uses of nuclear equipment and radio-

isotopes in medical, agricultural, and industrial research; and the application of nuclear power for the propulsion of commercial ships and aircraft, railroad locomotives, and motor vehicles. Not all these applications were yet feasible, but the panel urged that the federal government provide generous support for basic and applied research in university, industrial, and

federal laboratories. Recognizing the many potential applications of nuclear technology, the panel concluded, however, that “atomic power may be the most tangible symbol of America’s will to peace through the peaceful

atom. . . . If we fail to act to bring atomic power to the free world, other countries will do so ahead of us, or progress will proceed at a slower pace.”

NEW DATA ON FALLOUT

By the end of 1955 the Commission’s laboratories and headquarters staff were beginning to publish a substantial amount of data on radioactive fallout from nuclear testing. The Commission’s Nineteenth Semiannual Report

A TIME FOR DECISION

to the Congress in January 1956 contained a fifteen-page summary of recent findings on the long-term effects of fallout and brief descriptions of research sponsored by the Commission on radiation effects. More authoritative and detailed was a paper published in a scientific journal by Gordon M. Dunning, a health physicist in the division of biology and medicine. Dunning presented data on the blast, thermal, and radiation effects of nuclear detonating and discussed the radiation hazards posed by internal emitters such

as strontium-90 and iodine-131. He concluded that the hazards of testing were negligible up to that time.* Of much greater public interest was a paper that Libby presented at Northwestern University in January 1956 on “Radioactive Fallout and Radioactive Strontium.” Libby’s lecture was especially valuable to those out-

side the atomic energy establishment because for the first time it openly presented data gathered in Project Sunshine. In fact, Libby explained the background of the project and described the worldwide sampling network 329 that had been created to gather data on fallout patterns for strontium-90. Libby contended that the major part of bomb debris from high-yield tests reached the stratosphere, where it would be suspended for about a decade before it slowly descended to earth. Because strontium-90 has a relatively long half-life—twenty-eight years—most test debris, Libby admitted, would eventually enter the earth’s biosphere, where it could reach the food chain and potentially endanger children through cow’s milk. Libby reported a recent estimate that the maximum permissible concentration of strontium-90 in the human body was about one microcurie per 1,000 grams of calcium.® To help calculate total body burden, scientists had devised a convenient measure called a Sunshine unit, which was 0.001 of the permissible adult body burden. Thus, ten Sunshine units were comparable to natural background radiation. One thousand Sunshine units were not expected to produce any visible skeletal damage, but ten thousand units might be hazardous. Children under seven years of age were most suscep-

tible to strontium-90, but absorption among adults over forty was negligible. Measurements made in Houston, Texas, on bones of deceased children indicated an average strontium-90 content of 0.4 to 0.6 Sunshine units.° Libby sought to reassure his audience that the hazard from testing, if continued at the prevailing rate, would be insignificant. Despite the problems with the Castle-Bravo shot, Libby insisted that the weapon tests were conducted with great attention to the dangers of local fallout. In addition,

scientists in Project Sunshine, who had collected fallout from gummed papers, milk and cheese, alfalfa, animal meat and bones, and even human cadavers, projected that worldwide fallout would be dispersed rather evenly, with slight concentration in the middle latitudes, principally by rains, morning mists, and fogs. Most fallout was dumped into the seas, drained into rivers and lakes, or washed into the top two or three inches of soil where it was held “very tenaciously.” According to Libby’s calcula-

A TIME FOR DECISION

tions, even if all the bomb debris distributed uniformly around the world were to reach the biosphere, there would be little risk to human beings. As it was, only a small fraction of the strontium-90 accumulated in human bones. “On the basis of the information [we have] obtained,” Libby declared, “it is possible to say unequivocably that nuclear weapons tests carried out at the present time do not constitute a health hazard to the human population.” ’ Libby’s “unequivocable” confidence in the safety of nuclear testing

was not universally shared, however, even by the other Commissioners. Murray, for one, questioned the accuracy of some of Libby’s information and openly challenged the wisdom of taking such a positive position in the Commission’s semiannual report. Ultimately, the Commissioners adopted a much less categorical statement, noting in the section on “Long Term Effects of Fall-out From Nuclear Weapons” that the subject was “necessarily

330 one in which the conclusions may vary over a wide range.” The report conceded that estimates of injury from strontium-90 were based on data extrapolated from the known effects of radium on the human skeleton. Because injury due to strontium-90 had never been observed, there remained “degrees of uncertainty” over what concentration might actually produce damage.®

FALLOUT AND THE HAZARDS OF TESTING

Health effects from fallout were not the only “degrees of uncertainty” that plagued the Commission in January 1956. The general advisory committee learned from Charles L. Dunham, the new director of the Commission’s division of biology and medicine, that only 3 percent of the estimated debris from the Castle tests could be accounted for worldwide. The Commission estimated that 90 percent of the Castle fallout had dropped into the ocean, leaving only 10 percent for stratospheric deposition. The British, on

the other hand, estimated that 60 percent of the strontium-90 produced from megaton explosions remained in the stratosphere. Furthermore, British figures were six to ten times greater than the American estimate if the concentration in temperate regions with high rainfall were considered. If the British calculations were correct, according to Dunham, maximum permissible body burden would be reached after exploding 110 to 170 megatons of fission weapons, rather than the American estimate of 11,000 to 17,000 megatons. Finally, Dunham concluded that health standards had been set for adults, but that effects on babies and children were not “known with equal certainty.” ° Libby repeated his Northwestern University speech almost verbatim before a House subcommittee on government operations, which was receiving testimony on “Civil Defense for National Survival.” Questioned closely

A TIME FOR DECISION

by Congressman Holifield, Libby repeated his unequivocal assurances that nuclear weapon testing was safe. Later, when the Commission discussed the December 1955 program status report to be sent to the Joint Committee, Murray again suggested adding a qualifying introductory paragraph to the section on fallout to the effect that the information represented the best, but not necessarily the definitive, estimates of the staff. This time the Commission rejected Murray’s amendment by a three-to-one vote. !° For the time being Libby’s public analysis of the global fallout hazard from testing went essentially unchallenged.

When Ralph Lapp testified before Holifield’s subcommittee, he complimented Libby for his impressive statement. In fact, Lapp used Libby’s data to estimate the strontium-90 hazard of local fallout. Urging the Commission to publish the actual measurements on Rongelap, Lapp postulated that local hazards from strontium-90 could be serious. He observed

that the persistence of radiation effects were subtle and insidious. Madame 331 Joliot-Curie had recently died of leukemia, and earlier her mother, Marie Curie, had succumbed to radiation effects. Lapp, nevertheless, was more concerned about the dangers of nuclear warfare than he was about the hazards of testing.’! As Lapp’s testimony clearly indicated, the Commission was walking a fine line between justifying continued testing and informing the American people of the dangers of radioactive fallout in nuclear warfare. To counter increasing public opposition to further weapon tests, Libby proposed writing an unclassified technical paper on radiostrontium fallout that would outline the scientific data compiled by Project Sunshine. The Commission could not indefinitely argue that testing was safe, Libby stated, without declassifying the statistics upon which its conclusions were based. The general advisory committee agreed with Libby and recommended that “the flow of such information to the public domain be accelerated.” !? Such open-

ness, Libby reminded the Commissioners, “has brought us the freedom to proceed with Redwing,” the Pacific test series that included the first dropping of a hydrogen bomb from an airplane. Release of the Sunshine data, however, would also permit foreign governments to infer that American tests had yielded fission debris from at least twenty-four megatons of detonations. In the interests of the testing program, the Commission decided that neither American security nor the common defense would be jeopardized by releasing the Sunshine data through Libby’s April 20 address to the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia.”

DULLES’S ASSESSMENT OF NUCLEAR ARMS

John Foster Dulles was becoming increasingly alarmed in January 1956 by what he described to Eisenhower as trends unfavorable to the United States

A TIME FOR DECISION

in the development of nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union was already achieving the capacity to devastate the United States by surprise attack. In a few years, Dulles predicted, the Russians in a single stroke could virtually obliterate America’s industrial power and seriously impair the nation’s capacity to retaliate. Thus, the United States’ own nuclear deterrent would be weakened. Conversely, Dulles also worried that the strategy of “massive retaliation” itself was becoming obsolete as the United States’ ability to wage devastating nuclear warfare increased. He speculated that reluctance to use powerful nuclear weapons might begin to depreciate the value of the United States as an ally, undermine Western confidence in “collective defense,” and reduce the availability of foreign bases to American forces. '* Most serious, Dulles acknowledged that nuclear weapon stockpiles were expanding at such a pace as to endanger human life on earth or at least vast segments of it. He told the President that the world cried out for

332 statesmanship that would command nuclear power to serve humanity, not destroy it. Furthermore, Dulles thought that most people looked to the United States with its spiritual power, intellectual resourcefulness, and dedication to peace to lead the way to the peaceful atom. Dulles also believed that Eisenhower, who had inspired great hope with his Atoms-forPeace and Open Skies proposals, was uniquely qualified to assume international leadership. The trouble was that both ideas had largely lost their popular influence because Atoms for Peace, for all of its promise, would not halt the nuclear arms race. Moreover, neither Open Skies nor any other inspection proposal had been linked to any broad American plan for nuclear disarmament. Thus, the Soviet Union, with its “ban the bomb” propaganda, had been able to challenge America’s moral leadership by claiming that they wanted to end the thermonuclear danger. But the Americans were widely perceived as stalling on nuclear disarmament while trying to think up good reasons for continuing the nuclear race, or even expanding it. The irony for Dulles was that the communists, “whose creed denies moral principles,” might subvert America’s moral leadership. Given the Soviet Union’s unreliability and the lack of international controls and organization, the United States, in Dulles’s view, had no alternative but to maintain an arsenal of nuclear weapons. Dulles saw virtually no possibility of finding a technical solution to the disarmament problem,

and there was almost no chance that the Russians would submit to the comprehensive inspection system that the United States would demand be-

fore agreeing to substantial disarmament. Indeed, slim hopes vanished when Americans would not state categorically in advance that, should inspections prove technically feasible, the United States would, in fact, drastically reduce nuclear arms. Dulles concluded that the major obstacles to nuclear disarmament were not technical but political. To that end, Dulles hoped to expand the United Nations’ peacekeeping role by outlawing national stockpiles of atomic weapons and providing the United Nations Se-

A TIME FOR DECISION

curity Council with sufficient atomic weapons to counterbalance any threat of nuclear attack by a single nation. Probably inspired by Stassen, Dulles’s

observations were still vague and speculative. Nevertheless, he shared them with Eisenhower, who apparently welcomed even the rough ideas of Dulles.

Eisenhower agreed with his Secretary of State that it was essential for the United States to recapture the political initiative in the debate over nuclear disarmament, although the President was not quite so willing to give up the search for technical solutions. Rather, Eisenhower suspected

that political and technical proposals would have to complement each other. Certainly, technically feasible inspection schemes would strengthen any politically acceptable disarmament treaty. As anxious as Dulles was to counter Soviet propaganda, Eisenhower ignored the suggestion that disarmament might be enforced through the United Nations.'° 333 A NEW REJECTION OF DISARMAMENT

Despite rebuffs during 1955, Harold Stassen continued to develop a comprehensive American policy on arms control and disarmament. Sharing some of his views with Senator Hubert H. Humphrey’s disarmament subcommittee on January 25, 1956, Stassen described testing as a necessary consequence of the arms race. As long as the Cold War continued, weapon testing would be “essential” for national security.'© Although satisfied with Stassen’s defense of testing, the Commission did not share his long-range hope that all nuclear material could be restricted to peaceful purposes. Not only would it be almost impossible to implement such a proposal, but, as Commissioner Harold S. Vance observed, Stassen’s goal might also preclude developing military propulsion reactors for ships or other vehicles. In addition, Strauss pointed out that large amounts of nuclear materials would be needed for purely defensive uses in antiaircraft missiles.'’ When the National Security Council met the following day, January 26, it took no action on Stassen’s report. !®

BRITISH MOVE TOWARD A TEST BAN

Testing became a major item of discussion when British Prime Minister Anthony Eden visited Washington in February. Eden asked whether, as a move in the Cold War, the United States and the United Kingdom could propose to limit, control, or restrict testing. He frankly admitted that the idea would help him politically in the United Kingdom where apprehension over fallout was mounting. Eden also believed that there was little chance that the Russians would agree to control testing.

A TIME FOR DECISION

Strauss did not like Eden’s suggestion. He lectured Eden that all nuclear testing to date had added to the environment only a very small fraction of the radiation generated by natural sources; the differences, Strauss claimed, were no greater than the increases in exposure encountered in going from sea level to 5,000 feet. Furthermore, thermonuclear technology did not require the testing of ever larger bombs but rather the development of more efficient, lighter weapons such as those used against

aircraft.” When Strauss estimated that the National Academy of Sciences would require at least two years to complete all of its fallout study, Eden complained that lack of concrete conclusions in preliminary reports would probably increase pressures in the United Kingdom to stop testing. At a minimum, Eden wanted to reassure the British public that the United King-

dom and the United States were jointly studying the matter. Strauss re334 minded Eden that the two countries were cooperating in the study of radiation effects and promised to send the Prime Minister Libby’s recent speeches on fallout and other pertinent information planned for release. According to Dulles, there were two possible reasons for limiting testing: first to protect health, and second to advance arms control. Dulles reassured the British that the United States would stop testing if it were proven dangerous to humanity. Nevertheless, announcing that the United States and the United Kingdom were discussing a test limitation would only give credence to the belief that testing was hazardous. In Dulles’s opinion, a joint study could not conclude that testing was safe without producing “a

very bad public reaction.” On the other hand, Dulles doubted that there would be serious technical difficulties in devising a workable test limitation if humanity was actually being injured by testing.

Dulles believed that any plan to limit testing as a first step toward arms control presented an entirely different set of problems. Unless testing were banned entirely, Dulles predicted great difficulty in distinguishing between permissible and nonpermissible tests and in establishing effective controls. The Castle-Bravo shot in 1954 had dramatically illustrated the difficulty in estimating yields. A cheating nation, Dulles speculated, could

merely claim that a nonpermissible test had been the result of an unintended large yield. Cheating could also occur in China or Tibet where responsibility for the tests would not be clear. As a step toward arms limitation, Dulles vigorously concluded, “test limitation would be an extremely fallacious approach.” ”°

THE ARMS RACE: AN “AWFUL PROBLEM”

Following Eden’s departure, Eisenhower called an impromptu meeting of the National Security Council to discuss Stassen’s proposals. Although

A TIME FOR DECISION

Eisenhower complimented Stassen for his hard work, the President feared that there was nothing really new to propose, except possibly Strauss’s idea of designating strips of territory in the United States and Russia where inspection could be tried on a small scale. Strauss also suggested that while earmarking 20,000 kilograms of enriched uranium for domestic use the President should designate an equal amount for peaceful uses around the world.

Eisenhower thought that these suggestions were useful, but he was disappointed at the lack of progress toward disarmament. With elaborate public announcements, radio addresses, messages to Congress, speeches to the United Nations, and high-level negotiations with the Russians, the Administration seemed to be using a sledgehammer to drive a tack. Profoundly discouraged, Eisenhower saw few ways to avoid the gradual drift toward war. Nonetheless, the President felt the moral obligation to seek

some alternative to the arms race. He specifically asked the National Se- 330 curity Council to think about “this awful problem” and to offer ideas on how to channel mankind toward peaceful pursuits and the atom into peaceful uses. If the H-bomb could be banned, Eisenhower mused, the world would be better off. He also suspected that defense planning overlooked the fact “that nobody can win a thermonuclear war.” In a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, what is left of either country after the first seventy-two hours? the President asked. Eisenhower implored his advisers to search their hearts and minds for some way out of the collision course on which the two nations seemingly were embarked.?!

OPEN SKIES: A FADING HOPE

Despite Eisenhower's plea, Stassen and Strauss squabbled over how best to answer Bulganin’s letter of September 19, 1955, which had evaluated the President’s Geneva proposals. Bulganin had characterized Eisenhowers ideas as “sincere,” but he criticized Open Skies because the plan for aerial photography did not include the allies of each country. Furthermore, pushing the standard Soviet position, Bulganin complained that Eisenhower had ignored the reduction of armaments and the prohibition of nuclear weapons.” To respond to the Soviet’s objections, Stassen suggested that the United States pledge its support to the eventual peaceful use of all nuclear material. Strauss and the Commission objected vehemently to Stassen’s proposal. Not only would a pledge to use nuclear material solely for peaceful purposes damage the weapon program, but it would also preclude the development of nuclear propulsion for submarines and surface ships. With Dulles moderating Strauss’s strong protest, Eisenhower persisted in expressing his “ultimate hope . . . that all production of fissionable mate-

A TIME FOR DECISION

rials anywhere in the world [would] be devoted exclusively to peaceful

purposes.” In February 1956 infighting over Eisenhower’s nuclear policies must have tried the patience of Administration insiders, who were not even certain whether the President would run for reelection. On February 8, Eisenhower told reporters he would announce his decision before the end of the month. On February 14, the same day that Nikita Khrushchev denounced Joseph Stalin at the twentieth Party Congress, doctors at Walter Reed Army Hospital advised the President that he should be able to lead an active life for another five to ten years. Buoyed by the good news and convinced by

his close advisers that no other Republican could be elected in 1956, Eisenhower on February 29 announced his decision to run again for the presidency.”*

Shortly thereafter, Stassen left Washington for London where the 336 disarmament subcommittee would meet for almost two months, from March 19 to May 4. In London Stassen presented the American modified Open Skies plan, which melded limited aerial inspection with aspects of Bulganin’s ground inspection proposal.”> For Khrushchev, who was also present in London, Eisenhower’s obsession with aerial photography was troubling. The Soviet Union did not even have a complete photographic record of its own country, Khrushchev admitted. Whimsically, he claimed that the Russians had little interest in aerial photographs, whether of the United States, Monaco, or Peru. Still, Khrushchev thought the Soviet Union could accept some aspect of Open Skies if the Americans insisted. In addition, he reem-

phasized that the Russians had dropped their position on banning nuclear weapons because they knew the United States would never agree. More-

over, Khrushchev complained that whenever the Russians had tried to move toward adopting Western proposals over the past years, they had discovered that the West kept moving away. ”°

THE MORALITY OF MEGATON WEAPONS

Now a persistent goad to the Commission and the Administration, Commissioner Murray renewed his call for a limited test ban on February 23, 1956. Testifying before a closed session of the Joint Committee, Murray recom-

mended that the United States unilaterally cease testing large hydrogen weapons, set an upper limit on the size of thermonuclear bombs to be placed in the stockpile, and intensify development of a wide range of small, tactical weapons. Murray feared that unless the Administration changed its

policy, the United States would develop the capacity for destroying the world in a full-scale nuclear war. He had also seen estimates provided to the National Security Council that the Russians might produce a single weapon whose destructive power was greater than the entire American

A TIME FOR DECISION

stockpile. To Murray, the arms race had become sheer madness. No matter what the Russians might develop, Murray was convinced that the United States did not need to experiment with larger, more destructive weapons. Murray was not against testing, whose risks he thought were slight; rather he opposed stockpiling huge numbers of megaton super bombs whose destructive capability might contaminate the entire earth. Despite the efforts of the Commission’s division of biology and medicine, Murray argued that not enough was known about radioactive debris, especially “one of its most insidious components, radiostrontium. . . . Uncertainties about the rate of fallout,” he testified, “about variation in world distribution, about the mechanism of take-up into food and into the body, all combine to render definitive answers all but impossible at this moment.” One could imagine, Murray warned, “the impact on the medical profession as a whole in this country if it knew the magnitude of our mounting stock-

pile and the potential hazards associated with its use.” 337

Murray proposed that the United States unilaterally suspend thermonuclear testing. Conceding that this was his personal opinion, shared by neither the Commission nor the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Murray, for military and moral reasons, also opposed testing and stockpiling megaton hydrogen bombs. From the military perspective Murray contended that megaton-size weapons would not prove useful in warfare. Atomic superiority does not consist solely in the possession of bombs

bigger than those possessed by the enemy. It also rests upon the possession of such a wide variety and range of small atomic weapons that we shall be able to cope successfully with all the various military contingencies that might arise. Superior strength means flexible

strength; and this flexibility can only be achieved by advances in the field of small weapons.

Morally, Murray believed that “the traditional canons of justice that govern the waging of warfare are still valid in the nuclear age.” Although he was not expansive on his moral arguments to the Joint Committee, Murray, like Eisenhower, saw the interrelationship between atoms for peace

and atoms for war, or between nuclear weapons and industrial nuclear power. United States programs in both fields were directed toward the same ends—the furtherance of justice and peace. Virtually elaborating the President’s own concerns, Murray identified America’s most pressing problem as balancing military and peaceful programs in such a way that each individually and both together served the common purposes. Moreover, Murray

believed that as the benefits of nuclear power became universally shared the world would come to appreciate that “God in His almighty power and goodness has given us the secret of atomic energy for purposes of peace and human well-being and not for purposes of war and destruction.” 2’ Not surprisingly, Murray’s testimony to the Joint Committee infuri-

A TIME FOR DECISION

ated Strauss. Fearful that the issue might cause the President trouble at his next news conference, Strauss warned White House Press Secretary James Hagerty that Eisenhower might be questioned about testing. Murray knew perfectly well that the tests were not designed for large weapons, Strauss advised Hagerty, but for new applications, particularly in defensive and low-fallout weapons. The Atomic Energy Commission was run like a business, Strauss insisted, which included keeping Murray fully informed of all developments. For some reason, according to the chairman, Murray had a psychopathic obsession about being excluded from vital information.”® Strauss’s warning was timely and helpful to the President. At his March 21 press conference, Eisenhower was asked to comment on Ralph Lapp’s contention that it was possible to construct a suicide weapon so large that it could be carried only by a freighter. Lapp obviously had access to sources similar to Murray’s. Although Eisenhower did not answer the ques-

338 tion directly, he admitted that there was a practical limit to the size of thermonuclear weapons. There was an old saying, the President continued: “You do not drive a tack with a sledge hammer.” ””

Suspecting that the President supported his views on the development of tactical weapons, at least in principle, but receiving no satisfaction from the Commission or the Joint Committee, Murray took his case to the public on April 12, 1956, when he testified before Senator Humphrey’s disarmament subcommittee. Because in open hearings Murray could not statistically document his arguments that American nuclear firepower and stockpiles were already dangerously high, his moral arguments for unilateral suspension of thermonuclear tests and the development of tactical weapons seemed even more accentuated. Acknowledging the military principle that armaments should be demonstrably useful in actual warfare, Murray described an even higher principle that the use of force is always subject to the dictates of moral conscience. In Murray’s opinion the sheer brilliance of America’s technical achievements in nuclear weapons had tended to dull the nation’s moral sense. As a “nation under God,” Murray testified, Americans should recognize their moral obligation to limit war and the use of force. Murray reiterated that he did not think testing as such was dangerous but rather that he was horrified at the ethical implications of Dulles’s doctrine of massive retaliation. In retrospect, Murray even confessed that he did not believe that the use of the atomic bomb against “the city of Hiroshima and its multitudes of innocent people could be justified on moral grounds.”

THE H-BOMB: A CAMPAIGN ISSUE

In early spring 1956, Adlai Stevenson, campaigning against Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee for the Democratic presidential nomination, spoke

A TIME FOR DECISION

out against continued testing of hydrogen bombs. Inspired by Murray, Stevenson on April 21 proposed to the American Society of Newspaper Editors that halting H-bomb testing would be a dramatic expression of America’s real concern for peace. Like Murray, Stevenson would end the tests unilaterally, but, unlike the Commissioner, he did not propose buttressing the tactical stockpile. Stevenson borrowed liberally from Murray’s moral arguments while virtually ignoring the fact that Murray had also warned against simplistic “ban-the-bomb” schemes.*! Stevenson’s proposal, offered to the editors on Saturday, was almost immediately smothered by Russian actions. On Monday morning Nikita Khrushchev informed British businessmen that the Soviet Union was building a ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead. Probably unaware of Khrushchev’s announcement in London, Kefauver, uncertain on how best to parry Stevenson, conceded that he “saw no particular good in having further H-

bomb tests.” Stevenson himself asserted that the Russians had given every 339 indication that they would “go along” with his suggestion. After lunch on April 24, however, Republican Senators Thomas H. Kuchel of California and Styles Bridges of New Hampshire sharply criticized Stevenson’s testban proposals as misguided. By mid-afternoon, Kefauver had modified his morning statement by insisting that he favored only a reciprocal test ban with the Russians. Stevenson, now sensing that he had committed a major blunder, attempted to counterattack by reaffirming his test-ban proposal while charging that the Administration had been “dangerously dilatory” in developing guided missiles.” Intentionally or not, the Russians had struck a major blow at Stevenson’s campaign for the presidency without damaging his chances for the Democratic nomination. While campaigning vigorously for Florida’s twenty-eight convention votes a week later, Kefauver tried to capitalize on the issue by underscoring the folly of a test ban in the face of Khrushchev’s boast. But rather than reaping much benefit, Kefauver only succeeded in emphasizing the extent of Stevenson’s political isolation on the question of nuclear armaments. In the long run, Eisenhower was the chief beneficiary of the issue.**

In his news conference on April 25, Eisenhower emphasized what he described as the paradox in Stevenson’s position: that the United States should accelerate the development of guided missiles while stopping research on the hydrogen bomb. In the President’s words, “If you don’t work on one and get the right kind of explosive to use there, why work on the other?” Agreeing that the paradox simply made no sense, the Washington Star thought it analogous to fashioning an artillery piece without bothering

to design and produce shells for it. Or, as the Wall Street Journal commented, Stevenson could hardly have it both ways. How could America’s supposedly weakened defenses be strengthened by hobbling the nation’s primary weapons? *

A TIME FOR DECISION

At this point, Stevenson might have escaped with but a few minor bruises. Indeed, with the strongest press support coming from the Daily Worker, Stevenson virtually ignored the issue as his campaign for the nomination rolled into high gear during May. But questions concerning testing and the health effects of fallout would not disappear. Without mentioning Stevenson, Ralph Lapp warned that indefinite testing of nuclear weapons would endanger world health. According to Lapp, the Atomic Energy Commission had sugarcoated the bitter facts about fallout and had been guilty of “double-talk with regard to the long-term hazards from nuclear detonations.” Lapp praised Libby for publicly airing the issue on April 20 before the American Philosophical Society but sharply disagreed with his conclu-

sions. In fact, the two men agreed only that strontium-90 was the chief long-term threat to human life.*°

340 THE NATIONAL ACADEMY REPORT

On June 12, 1956, the National Academy of Sciences issued its report on “The Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation.” Simultaneously, in London the United Kingdom Medical Research Council presented similar findings to Parliament. Indeed, although the two studies had been conducted independently, their release was coordinated for simultaneous publication in the morning papers on the next day.*° According to Libby, neither report presented findings not already known to the Commission and available in open literature. There were minor differences over the effects of strontium-90, no doubt the result of different methods of measuring radioactivity. Libby was also gratified that the reports generally agreed with the Commission’s views, with the exception that the studies recommended additional reduction in permissible lifetime exposure to radiation. Libby did not anticipate, however, that the reports would necessitate any change in the Commission’s positions on nuclear weapon testing, the Atoms-for-Peace campaign, or any other atomic energy program.

Both reports identified the genetic consequences of radiation as a paramount consideration. Most experts agreed that there was no threshold below which radiation did not threaten genetic damage. Thus, geneticists recommended lowering permissible exposure rates as much as practicable. The National Academy of Sciences now advocated an upper limit of 50 roentgens for individual persons up to age thirty, or an average exposure of the population above natural background not to exceed 10 roentgens from conception to thirty years of age. In addition to natural background, the largest source of radiation to the population came from medical and dental X-rays and fluoroscopy. In comparison to the thirty-year dose to the gonads

A TIME FOR DECISION

that the average person received from natural background (about 4.3 roentgens) and from X-rays and fluoroscopy (about 3 roentgens), the dose from weapon tests, if continued at the existing level, would have been 0.1 roent-

gen. Even if the test estimate was off by a factor of five—0O.02 to 0.5 roentgens over thirty years—fallout from weapon tests was dramatically less dangerous than radiation from medical uses. The academy did not certify that nuclear weapon tests were safe but implied that the risks from testing were minor. The academy did warn, however, that even low levels of radiation could have serious biological effects directly proportional to the amount of radiation. Thus, many of the disastrous consequences of nuclear war could be implied from the lessons of peacetime use.*’ The Commission welcomed the academy report and, with the exception of Murray, applauded its conclusions. When the Commission issued

its semiannual report to the Congress, Murray refused to concur on the section pertaining to the hazards of fallout from radioactive strontium. The 341 Commissioners concluded that “at the present level of weapons’ testing, the present and potential contribution of strontium-90 to the world ecology is not a significant factor.” The Commissioners thereafter summarized the findings of the academy and affirmed the need for additional research and study, including continuation of Project Sunshine. Thus the report became the basis for justifying Commission programs and accelerating research into radiation effects. To the National Security Council the Commission emphasized the need for a broad research program on long-range hazards caused both by nuclear weapon tests and power plants. Again citing the National Academy of Sciences as well as the British Medical Council, the Commission advised the security council that there were still important data to be gathered on the implications of testing and warfare. **

THE DEMOCRATS AND NUCLEAR POWER

Much to the disappointment of Senator Anderson, the report of the McKinney panel in February 1956 did not give the Democrats ready ammunition to fire at the Commission’s civilian power program, but it did provide a firm base from which to launch an attack. The ammunition was already available in two forms. First, Senator Gore introduced a bill in July 1955 that “au-

thorized and directed” the Commission to construct six demonstration power plants, each of different design and located in a different geographical section of the country. Second, before the Joint Committee on February 23, 1956, Commissioner Murray proposed that the United States install at home and abroad power reactors with a capacity of two million kilowatts. Only in this way did Murray think that the nation could establish “a commanding lead in the atomic power race.” *

A TIME FOR DECISION

By the end of April 1956 Anderson was prepared for a series of hearings on legislation designed to remove the roadblocks that the McKinney panel had found on the highway to civilian nuclear power. As the new executive director of the Joint Committee he had selected James T. Ramey, a veteran Commission attorney, who in a decade at the Chicago operations office had gained an intimate knowledge of both Commission and industry efforts in reactor development. For technical support Anderson had also obtained the temporary services of Walter H. Zinn, who had just resigned after ten years as director of the Commission’s Argonne Laboratory. In May Anderson held a seminar and hearings on providing adequate insurance coverage for power reactor owners and equipment manufacturers.” The big guns were reserved for hearings starting the following week on the Gore bill and other means of “accelerating the civilian reactor program.” To prepare for the public hearings Anderson held two secret execu-

342 tive sessions on May 21 and 22 with officials from the State Department, the Commission, and the Central Intelligence Agency. In the closed sessions Anderson and his colleagues revealed their motivation for supporting the Gore bill. To be sure, the fight over public versus private power, growing distrust of Strauss, and a lack of confidence in industry’s professed commitment to nuclear power were all involved. But the center of committee concern was Cold War competition with the Soviet Union. For hours the committee members tabulated and retabulated estimates of future nuclear power capacity in the Soviet Union and to a lesser extent in the United

Kingdom and France. In the Cold War context the predictions were alarming. According to “intelligence estimates” the Soviet Union would have 400,000 installed kilowatts by 1958, 1,222,000 in 1959, and more than two million in 1960. In contrast the United States would have 60,000 kilowatts at Shippingport by the end of 1957. If all the power demonstration

and independent projects were completed as proposed by industry, the United States would still have only 750,000 kilowatts of capacity by 1960. When it came out that the “intelligence estimates” were based on public statements by Soviet leaders, Strauss contended that these were not serious commitments reflecting Soviet capabilities. To use the Soviet figures to set the American goal might amount to chasing a chimera.*! In opening the public hearings later that week, Gore dramatized the Soviet threat. To lose that race, Gore said, would be “catastrophic.” The United States had “a clear moral responsibility” to develop “this marvelous

new source of energy . . . to dispel the Soviet propaganda that we are a Nation of warmongers.” But as the hearings continued, the testimony followed the now familiar paths established in 1954 between the proponents of private and government development of nuclear power. Although Ander-

son, Holifield, and other Democrats supported the Gore bill, it soon became apparent that the proposal was too ambitious. Strauss pointed out that

A TIME FOR DECISION

building six demonstration power plants, each of a different design and in a different geographic location, would be more costly in terms of money and talent than the huge Savannah River project. The idea of scattering

reactors around the country also raised in Republicans the specter of a sinister attempt to build regional TVAs across the nation.” Perhaps Gore had overstated the case for a federally supported nu-

clear power program, but there was no question that a ground swell of public sentiment was building for some kind of action to get the United States back in the international race for nuclear power. On the Democratic side Robert McKinney took up the issue in a ringing statement before the Overseas Press Club of New York on May 17 and later at the Joint Committee hearings. McKinney charged that the United States had been “back-

ward” in promoting nuclear power, the most advanced, the most dramatic—perhaps even the cheapest—form of foreign aid. The problem,

McKinney argued, was that the United States was too concerned about 343 secrecy. “We have been afraid that other nations might misuse the information and the materials we would give them,” he continued. But McKinney, who shared neither the Commission’s sense of accomplishment nor the State Department’s caution, thought risks from nuclear arms proliferation were small, particularly if the United States exported only nuclear power technology while keeping military application under lock and key.® McKinney's speech seemingly stirred political embers. In reaction,

C. D. Jackson, one of the original architects of Eisenhower's Atoms-forPeace speech who was impatient with the subsequent pace of the program, offered Strauss an embittered history of failure and frustration since the President’s glowing proclamation in December 1953. If Jackson’s history was too harsh, he was not alone with McKinney in viewing the American program as too timid. Writing for the atoms committee of the Federation of

American Scientists, Herbert J. Kouts expressed the opinion that the United States was not moving fast enough. “Probably you are motivated here by a desire to fulfill the program in a straightforward, orderly way, as free from mistakes as possible,” Kouts wrote to John A. Hall. “We on the other hand think that some mistakes in detail are allowable, if only greater speed can be bought this way.” “ Significantly, during spring 1956 the Democrats did not criticize Eisenhower because his nuclear power plan was environmentally reckless or socially dangerous. Rather, following the lead of Anderson and McKinney, they chastened the Administration for not charging ahead far enough or fast enough. In May, hammering away at the Dixon- Yates theme, Senator

Kefauver, on the campaign trail for the Democratic presidential nomination, charged that the United States had “fallen woefully behind” the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and France because the Eisenhower Admin-

istration had insisted that private industry be the exclusive developer of

A TIME FOR DECISION

commercial atomic energy. Kefauver repeated his accusations a month later, more stridently blaming “Republican Freebooters” for falling behind in the international development of nuclear power.”

THE GORE-HOLIFIELD BILL

The revised bill that Gore introduced in the Senate on June 29, 1956, reflected a more considerate and temperate position than the original draft. The new version, which Holifield introduced in the House, neither required that the plants be located in six regions nor specified the number or types of reactors to be built. Instead the Commission would be directed to build large-scale plants at existing Commission production sites to provide electricity for those installations, to construct smaller experimental reactors at

344 Commission laboratories, and to assist other nations in developing their own power reactors. With these changes, the Democratic majority easily passed the bill in the Senate on July 12, 1956.” As the election-year session of Congress churned to its end in the last weeks of the month, the House debates loomed as decisive for the Gore-Holifield bill. The Democrats, still firmly in control, used hearings before the House Appropriations Committee as an occasion to denounce both the Commission and the Administration for failing to mount a vigorous government program for developing nuclear power. When the committee submitted its report approving $440 million to fund reactor construction under the Gore-Holifield bill, it also published the transcript of the appropriation hearings, which contained more than three hundred pages of testimony, much of it excoriating the Commission and supporting the GoreHolifield plan as a moral imperative. The Administration in the meantime marshaled its forces against the bill while private industry financed an advertising campaign against it.* In seven hours of floor debate on July 24, 1956, the Democratic majority in the House struggled to maintain party ranks in support of the Gore-Holifield bill, but Congressman Cole’s success in pushing through amendments favored by the Administration foreshadowed the final outcome. With twenty-seven Democrats not voting and an equal number siding with the Republican opposition, the bill failed by twelve votes.” This unexpected defeat killed all hopes for a nuclear power bill in the Eighty-fourth Congress. Ever since the formation of the McKinney panel sixteen months earlier, Senator Anderson had harbored visions of a well-articulated federal program for nuclear power development that the Democratic members of the Joint Committee might propose as a key plank

in the party’s platform for the 1956 elections. Now that dream was in shambles. Frustrated by the Administration’s refusal to accept any substantial increase in funding for the development of nuclear power, Anderson

A TIME FOR DECISION

became ever more suspicious of Strauss’s motives. He even convinced himself that Strauss was really opposed to nuclear power on any basis because

it would threaten the economic interests of the Rockefellers, who he believed had vast holdings in fossil energy resources. Bitterly disappointed by the defeat of the Gore-Holifield bill, Anderson angrily withdrew two other bills that he had shepherded through the Joint Committee to encourage private participation in nuclear development: one provided federal liability insurance for nuclear power facilities, and the other amended the Public Utility Holding Company Act to exempt from its provisions power companies participating jointly in noncommercial nuclear projects. Both bills probably would have passed with little or no debate, but Anderson was determined to hold them hostage pending Congressional action on a new version of Gore-Holifield in 1957.” 345 REDWING AND GENERAL GAVIN

Throughout the spring and into July 1956 the Commission conducted its Redwing series of nuclear tests at the Pacific Proving Ground. More than one dozen tests, as described by Strauss, were designed to develop defensive weapons against air and missile attacks.” Nevertheless, Redwing also tested America’s first airdrop of a multimegaton hydrogen bomb and provided the Commission its best opportunity since the ill-fated Castle-Bravo test to collect fallout data in the Pacific. The testing was unaffected by scattered protests in the United States and abroad. On May 21 over Namu Island at Bikini an Air Force bomber dropped its thermonuclear payload, which exploded at about 15,000 feet and created minimal fallout that drifted northward over uninhabited ocean. Somewhat embarrassingly, through navigational error the pilot had missed his target by about four miles, but the miss was of little consequence from either a military, diagnostic, or safety point of view. In multimegaton thermonuclear weaponry, a four-mile error did not mean that the target remained undamaged.®! A few days after the airdrop General James M. Gavin, Army chief of research and development, used the Cherokee shot to illustrate the radiological power and significance of the hydrogen bomb. Under questioning

from Senator Stuart Symington, Gavin confirmed that a recent article in Fortune was essentially correct: a large-scale thermonuclear attack on the United States would kill or maim some seven million persons and render hundreds of square miles uninhabitable for perhaps a generation. Even more dramatically, Gavin predicted that American retaliation against Russia would spread death from radiation across Asia to Japan and the Philippines. Or if the winds blew the other way, an attack on eastern Russia could eventually kill hundreds of millions of Europeans including, some commentators added, possibly half the population of the British Isles.

A TIME FOR DECISION

After the Air Force subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Armed Services released Gavin’s classified testimony on June 28, 1956, America’s allies, the press, and the general public began to understand the

startling implications of thermonuclear warfare. The impact on allied nations in Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia could hardly be underestimated as America’s partners in Soviet containment and massive retaliation came to realize that they could become devastated victims of a United States—Soviet Union war. Gavin’s statement also evoked a sharp protest from General Alfred M. Gruenther, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe,

a post once held by the President himself. At the White House, Dulles, Strauss, and others decided that Eisenhower should try to counter the disastrous effects of Gavin’s testimony by minimizing the danger of fallout.

346 oe >»

THE “CLEAN” WEAPON

The Redwing tests seemed to the President’s advisers to offer an ideal opportunity to calm public fears by stressing American efforts to develop

weapons with reduced radioactive fallout. The development of “clean bombs” presented the possibility of returning to the pre—Castle-Bravo era,

when military planning focused on the blast and heat effects of nuclear weapons. There was a real question whether the clock could be turned back, but the White House gave the Commission the task of preparing a press release on clean weapons. Although Strauss and his colleagues could appreciate the political and diplomatic considerations involved, the Commission was more concerned that any statement at all might compromise military secrets. Edward Teller warned that a reference to clean bombs could provide the Russians

significant insight into the design of the United States’ most advanced weapons. To reveal that the United States had developed a weapon that had very little fallout would alert the Russians to the fact that the United States had achieved a breakthrough in weapon design.™ White House desires to counter Gavin, however, overrode Commis-

sion reluctance to declassify some of its work on clean weapons. Strauss explained that a public statement would accomplish two purposes. First, the world would be assured that the United States was not obsessed with weapons of mass destruction. Second, Strauss believed that a press release would reduce public pressure for the cessation of weapon tests. The other Commissioners agreed that testing should be defended, but Libby remained

leery of unnecessarily compromising design information. So did Eisenhower, who decided not to issue such an announcement himself because he did not want to field technical questions on nuclear weapons at press conferences.**° The President had already mentioned in a press conference on April 25 that the Redwing series would test weapons with reduced fallout;

A TIME FOR DECISION

to that extent, American intentions had already been revealed. At an informal meeting when Murray was absent, the Commission acquiesced to an urgent appeal from Dulles that Strauss become the Administration’s spokesman on clean weapons.”°

Strauss issued a brief statement about the results of the Redwing tests that same evening. As cryptically as possible, he noted the progress that the laboratories had made in localizing fallout. The tests had achieved “maximum effect in the immediate area of a target with minimum widespread fallout hazard.” After assuring the public that large thermonuclear weapons did not necessarily produce massive fallout, Strauss concluded hopefully that Redwing had proven “much of importance not only from a military point of view but from a humanitarian aspect.” *’ Unexpectedly, Strauss’s “clean bomb statement,” as it came to be called, caught a whirlwind. Opponents of nuclear testing might have been

expected to dismiss it as the Commission’s justification for further testing, 347 but the bitterness of Anderson’s and Murray’s reactions were surprising. Anderson called the release of the statement without informing the Joint Committee a “studied insult” to Congress.°** Murray was outraged because the Commission had approved the statement on July 19, after he had departed for a weekend at home in New York. For Murray, the incident was the latest and among the most egregious efforts by Strauss to grab all power in the chairman’s hands. Within the week, Murray appeared before the Joint Committee to repudiate the press release. He did not object so much to what Strauss had said but rather to the fact that he had been hoodwinked into believing the President would make the statement. As it was, Murray had not been given the opportunity to express his views on an official statement by the Commission. Before the hearing ended on July 23, 1956, Anderson, Murray, and Strauss had exchanged bitter words on the issue.” Troubled by the charges and countercharges that undermined the Commission’s defense of the testing program, Libby proposed a joint statement acceptable to all the Commissioners. Both Strauss and Murray expressed their willingness to cooperate, but neither man ultimately could overlook the deep personal antagonism that divided them. Before they could reach any agreement at a subsequent Commission meeting, Strauss and Murray fell into bitter name calling: Murray accused Strauss of constantly twisting words, and Strauss blatantly denounced Murray as a liar. Consequently, the clean bomb statement stood without further official elaboration. Even had there been clarification, Strauss had already exposed the Commission to scathing criticism from the press. Ralph Lapp wrote a devastating critique in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, when he observed that Strauss single-handedly had invented “humanitarian H-bombs.” Lapp added a careful review of the available fallout data and a detailed analysis of the probable configuration of the hydrogen bomb. Lapp concluded that

A TIME FOR DECISION

dirtiness was a relative thing. Superbombs could be designed to be relatively clean or very dirty. The former, Lapp assumed, were desirable for test purposes, while the latter could serve as a strategic weapon. “War is a dirty business,” Lapp observed. “Part of the madness of our time is that adult men can use a word like humanitarian to describe an H-bomb.”°!

STASSEN TRIES AGAIN

The Administration’s attempt to exploit the clean weapon theme had backfired, but it did show how seriously Dulles, Strauss, and others took the continuing demand for a moratorium or a permanent ban on testing nuclear weapons. Earlier in June 1956 both men had strongly objected to British plans to open negotiations with the Soviet Union on this subject.© But even

348 more threatening was the test ban proposal that Harold Stassen included in the disarmament plan he sent to the National Security Council on July 29. Stassen based his proposals on the assumption that almost any nation, if it so desired, could fabricate an elementary nuclear weapon within three years. Thereafter, he assumed, a nuclear power could build a thermonuclear weapon within another three years. Stassen also foresaw that the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union would each have developed intercontinental missiles capable of delivering thermonuclear warheads within three to ten years. Thus, he predicted that in the relatively near future as many as twenty nations, both East and West, would possess nuclear weapons with the potential of igniting world war.™ To forestall uncontrolled nuclear proliferation, Stassen offered a complex ten-point plan designed to halt the spread of weapons while promoting peaceful uses. Incorporating key aspects of Eisenhower’s Atomsfor-Peace and Open Skies initiatives, Stassen attempted to weave together the main threads of a comprehensive nuclear disarmament policy. The Commission could hardly take seriously Stassen’s proposal that a test ban, a reduction of the numbers of nuclear weapons, and a cessation of all production of fissionable materials for weapons be accomplished by July 1,

1957. Stassen even suggested a “reasonable” nuclear posture for the United Kingdom and eventual inclusion of the Chinese communists within the terms of an international arms control agreement.

Whatever hopes Stassen may have had for his disarmament proposal, he had jeopardized his own future by stumbling into the quicksand of Republican politics. In a private meeting with the President on July 20, just before Eisenhower was to leave for Panama to confer with Latin Ameri-

can leaders, Stassen announced his intention to support Christian Herter for the vice-presidential nomination at the forthcoming Republican national convention. According to Stassen, a private poll indicated that with Nixon

on the ticket Eisenhower lost six percentage points and jeopardized the

A TIME FOR DECISION

party’s chances of recapturing control of Congress. With Herter, Stassen believed the Republicans could attract enough independents and Democrats to achieve Congressional victory.” Apparently, Eisenhower offered no comment on Stassen’s startling announcement. Recovering from ileitis and anxious to take off for his delayed trip to Panama, Eisenhower merely assured Stassen that as an American citizen he was free to follow his own judgment. Stassen interpreted the President’s vague response as tacil approval of the ill-fated plans to “dump” Nixon from the ticket.°® Whatever the President’s motives or distractions that day—he was also very much involved in the annual civil defense ex-

ercise, Operation Alert, which simulated an attack over Alaska—he left Stassen with the impression that the President favored a truly “open convention.” Stassen’s miscalculations of both the President’s intentions and Nixon’s strength within the Republican party seriously undermined his role

as the President’s “Secretary of Peace.” In the midst of renewed crisis in 349 the Middle East prompted by Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal Company, tough budget negotiations with Defense Secretary Wilson, and planning sessions with Republican National

Committee Chairman Leonard Hall about the forthcoming convention in San Francisco, Eisenhower was pestered by the “Stassen affair,” as the President’s personal secretary, Anne Whitman, called it. On July 31 Kisenhower met with Stassen, Ambassador Amos Peaslee, Deputy Special Assis-

tant to the President, and Strauss to discuss progress on disarmament. During the meeting, Eisenhower decided to place Stassen on a month’s leave-of-absence so that the disarmament adviser could continue his political activities as a private citizen.° Inevitably, Stassen’s political campaigning for Herter, who actually nominated Nixon in San Francisco, hurt Stassen’s standing within the Pres-

ident’s inner circle. Meeting with Dulles after the convention, Peaslee pointedly disassociated himself from Stassen’s activities. Dulles lamented the unfortunate developments and predicted that they would create a real question of confidence in future disarmament negotiations. Senator William Knowland, a member of the Joint Committee, also confided in Dulles that Congress could no longer have confidence in Stassen’s continuing conduct of disarmament affairs.“? Nevertheless, despite his pique over Stassen’s actions, Eisenhower stood by his “Secretary of Peace” even as opposition to Stassen’s June 29 disarmament plan mounted within the Administration. Despite the concerted efforts of the Administration and the Commission to resolve the pressing questions that the development of nuclear technology had created in domestic and international affairs, little was accomplished during the first six months of 1956. The resolution of nuclear power policy had stalemated with defeat of the Gore-Holifield bill. The President’s hopes for halting the slide into the abyss of nuclear war had been thwarted by practical considerations of national security. By pressing too hard and

A TIME FOR DECISION

blundering into political troubles, Stassen had hurt the cause of nuclear disarmament and the test ban more than he had helped it. Six months of opportunity had slid by. Now as Congress disbanded for the national nomi-

nating conventions, it seemed certain that nuclear issues would figure prominently in the presidential campaign.

390

CHAPTER 13

NUCLEAR ISSUES:

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1956

In contrast to their strategy in the 1952 presidential election, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson vigorously debated America’s nuclear future in 1956. ‘To be sure, as the Oppenheimer case, Dixon- Yates, and the Lucky Dragon incident had dramatized, atomic energy was no stranger to

the political arena. Yet never before had presidential candidates stressed nuclear issues in a political campaign. In large part, the President himself was responsible for the debate. Throughout his first term Eisenhower had resolutely pressed his Administration to disseminate, within the limits of national security, all available information on atomic energy. Operation Candor, the President’s 1953 United Nations speech, Atoms for Peace, the 1954 Atomic Energy Act, the Geneva peaceful uses conference, annual civil defense exercises, fallout reports, biomedical research and publication, and even the Commission’s printed handbook on weapon effects were all part of his effort to inform the American public about atoms for war and peace. Eisenhower would have preferred to keep atomic energy out of par-

tisan politics, and he was annoyed when Stevenson and others tried to capitalize on the test ban and other national security issues. The 1956 presidential campaign, however, reflected Eisenhower's belief that the American people should face up to both the hopes and fears of the nuclear age. During the presidential campaign in 1956, political skirmishes began over domestic nuclear power, gradually spread to contention over international cooperation, and concluded in a spirited exchange over weapon testing and development. Eisenhower easily won the debates and the election, but not without paying a political price in terms of public confidence in the Atomic Energy Commission, its leadership, and programs.

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1956

STRAUSS ON THE OFFENSIVE

The slim margin of the Administration’s victory on the Gore-Holifield bill did not deter Strauss for a moment in his drive to develop nuclear power. Privately he considered Senator Anderson’s suspicions of his long association with the Rockefellers preposterous, but he hoped that the incident would serve as evidence of Anderson’s irrational hostility towards him. Anderson was correct, however, in his conclusion that Strauss was determined to keep the development of nuclear power in the private sector as much as possible. This bias was never more evident than in Strauss’s efforts to expedite construction of the Enrico Fermi nuclear plant near Detroit. The Fermi project had grown out of one response to the first invitation under the Commission’s power demonstration reactor program. The proposal had come from a group of electric utilities headed by the Detroit

359 Edison Company, whose president, Walker L. Cisler, had long been a spokesman for industry in nuclear power development. Cisler’s plan had been to build a full-scale nuclear power plant in marshland on the shores of Lake Erie, thirty miles south of Detroit. The plant was based on the technology produced in operating the experimental breeder reactor, which had first produced electricity from nuclear energy at the Idaho test station in 1951. The breeder concept, which theoretically of all proposed reactor types offered the greatest efficiencies in using uranium fuel, also posed some of the most difficult engineering problems. The experimental plant in Idaho had provided much useful information, but it was far too small to serve as a prototype for the Fermi plant. Furthermore, operation of the Idaho plant had raised some grave questions about the safety of breeder reactors in general. In an experiment in November 1955, scientists at the Idaho station had deliberately subjected the test reactor to a power surge, revealing a short but definite positive temperature coefficient. This term meant that under certain conditions an increase in core temperature produced a rise in reactivity, which could lead to a power runaway and core meltdown. In fact, the core of the experimental reactor had been destroyed in this test.! Under the high priority that the Commission accorded the Fermi project as part of the power demonstration program, Reactor Development Division Director W. Kenneth Davis and his staff pushed ahead with the administrative approvals necessary to begin construction of the plant. The core meltdown at Idaho was reason for concern, but the Idaho reactor engineers believed they understood the cause and could correct it. Without disagreeing with this assessment, the Commission’s advisory committee on reactor safeguards warned Kenneth E. Fields, the general manager, in June that until much more information was available about the Idaho accident there was no assurance that a similar reaction could not occur in the Fermi plant. Estimates indicated that an equivalent reactivity surge in the Fermi

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1956

plant could conceivably result in an explosion that would breach the containment building, and no one knew whether the Idaho failure represented the most serious accident theoretically possible. Before the Fermi reactor could be built with solid assurance of safe operation, the advisory committee concluded that the Commission would have to undertake extensive research, not only on the meltdown mechanism but also on fast-breeder reactors in general.” This conclusion shocked Strauss and the Commission. Delay of the Fermi project pending additional research might seriously undercut the power demonstration program and give the Joint Committee new ammunition for a large federal reactor program. The same result could come from a Commission decision to put more money into breeder research and development. On the other hand, the Commission could not reasonably ignore the advisory committee’s report and grant Cisler’s group a construction per-

mit. Under the circumstances the Commission could do no more than issue 353 a conditional permit, pending the completion of additional research needed to assure safe operation of the reactor. Before the Commission could make a formal decision, Commissioner Murray revealed the conclusions of the advisory committee’s report in a hearing before a House appropriations subcommittee on June 29. Outraged that the Commission had withheld the report and then released it to a House

subcommittee rather than the Joint Committee, Senator Anderson demanded a copy of the full report. Fearing that release of the report before the Commissioners had made a formal decision on the case would set a dangerous precedent for the Commission’s regulatory process, Strauss con-

sulted the staff in an effort to find a way around the Joint Committee’s request. After several long discussions, the Commissioners agreed to send the Joint Committee a copy with a request that it be considered “administratively confidential.” Anderson refused to accept the report with this condition and informed G. Mennen Williams, the Governor of Michigan, about the situation. When the Commission again balked at releasing the report, Anderson charged that the Commission had used “star chamber” proceedings and suggested that the new Congress in 1957 consider legislation that would separate the Commission’s licensing and regulatory functions from its research and production responsibilities. °

Edward Teller had already warned Strauss that the Fermi reactor should not be built until the instability in the Idaho plant had been explained. Strauss also admitted privately that denial of the advisory committee report had been an error, but he had no intention of delaying the Fermi project. The Commission did not reconsider its decision to grant a conditional construction permit, and on August 8 Strauss participated with Cisler in ground-breaking ceremonies near Detroit. Strauss acknowledged that the Commission’s action had precipitated “some rather violently voiced oppo-

sition in Washington,” but he wrote this off simply as an “attack being

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1956

directed against the free enterprise development of nuclear power in this country.’”’*

Privately Strauss gave some thought to the stance the Administration should take on nuclear power in the impending presidential campaign. At his farm in Virginia he drafted for possible use by Republican members of the Joint Committee a statement denouncing Anderson for destroying the

“committee's bipartisan tradition.” This, he admitted to a White House aide, was a “labor of love,” but on second thought he decided that it would do little more than anger Anderson. The White House agreed. As a campaign strategy Strauss apparently accepted the advice of one of his own

staff that “a direct debate on the issue of public versus private power should be avoided, except to point out that the Commission is not doing business . . . exclusively with privately owned utilities.” > Because Anderson and the Democrats had already abandoned the nuclear power issue, 3904 neither Eisenhower nor Stevenson made any extensive use of it during the campaign.

POLITICS OF THE INTERNATIONAL ATOM

In spring and summer 1956, Atoms for Peace weathered international as well as domestic politics. The Atomic Energy Commission had assumed that in order to foster European political and economic integration, the United States would have to negotiate with the Community of Six on a most-

favored-nation basis. That is, while promoting EURATOM partnership among the Six, it would be inconsistent for the United States to execute bilateral cooperation agreements with prospective members of the European Community on terms more favorable than it was willing to give EURATOM itself. For its part, the State Department was well aware of the potential embarrassment and inconsistency inherent in pursuing bilateral arrangements with individual members of the Coal and Steel Community, while at the same time trying to promote a common atomic energy institu-

tion among the Six. Bilateral negotiations with the European countries could have been discontinued, but at a price that might have damaged the United States’ relations with EURATOM. Belgium’s foreign minister, PaulHenri Spaak, warned that EURATOM’s opponents, especially in Germany, were encouraged by America’s apparent willingness to undermine Euro-

pean unity by continuing to make bilateral arrangements with European countries. Spaak went so far as to predict “doom” for EURATOM should the United States indicate any willingness to conclude with Germany a power bilateral arrangement under which enriched uranium would be supplied from the President’s February 22 allocation. The dilemma was not easy to resolve, particularly in view of the Commission’s eagerness to pursue the bilateral route.°

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1956

Dulles decided it was inappropriate for the United States to refuse to negotiate bilateral agreements with the Six or to declare a moratorium on such negotiations pending the outcome of the EURATOM discussions. But he hoped to deemphasize the bilaterals by not concluding any long-term fuel commitments with the Six (Belgium being a possible exception) until after the future of EURATOM had been decided. Nevertheless, when the EURATOM negotiations bogged down in the summer of 1956, French, Italian, and German interest in discussing separate bilateral agreements with the United States increased to the point where American diplomats feared EURATOM itself was in jeopardy. To the State Department’s alarm, at a particularly critical point of the EURATOM discussions between Spaak, Prime Minister Guy Mollet of France, and Chancellor Konrad Adenauer of West Germany, the Commission complicated matters by energetically promoting the bilateral agreements, which only encouraged German and

French dissidents. ’ 399 THE BRUSSELS CONFERENCE

Without seeming to meddle in the internal affairs of Europe, there was little

the United States could do overtly to encourage the participants in the Brussels conference, which had convened on June 26, 1956, to study both the Common Market and the EURATOM projects. Jean Monnet, a French statesman and former chairman of the European Coal and Steel Community, had warned Strauss that the United States should not appear to pressure the Europeans into EURATOM with generous offers of enriched uranium. Because KURATOM’s formation was primarily a matter for Europeans to decide by themselves, Monnet advised, the United States would do best not to indicate its position in the matter. The trouble with such reticence, however, was that EURATOM opponents had been encouraged by American silence. German industrialists who opposed EURATOM ownership and monopoly over fissionable materials had allied themselves with Franz Josef Strauss, minister of atomic energy affairs, against Adenauer. Led by Minister Strauss, this group advocated creation of an independent German atomic energy program, subject only to loose control by the German Federal Republic, with its international component resting on bilateral relations. The French were also divided between internationalists, led by Monnet, who wanted to check German industrial resurgence through European integration, and those who did not want to sacrifice French advantages in atomic energy to European economic integration. American observers of the debates in the French National Assembly during July 1956 were surprised by the recurring expressions of resentment toward the United States from both the right and the left. Sometimes oblique, but often quite blunt,

criticism of the United States was voiced even by moderates favoring

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1956

EURATOM who argued that European integration provided France the best

opportunity of attaining leadership in developing atomic energy without undignified dependence upon American help.® As enthusiasm for EURATOM diminished following attacks from both German industrialists and French opponents, compromises inevitably weakened the original concept. Despite repeated diplomatic hints that the United States would like to sit down with the prospective EURATOM part-

ners to discuss a strong agreement for cooperation, the Americans were consistently rebuffed by the Six, who assumed that any direct United States

involvement in the negotiations would be highly damaging. At the same time, discussions at Brussels produced compromises that threatened to produce a weak and inconsequential European institution, incapable of advancing the United States’ main political objective—tying Germany to Western Europe through economic integration. EURATOM supporters were

396 not challenged by a direct assault but rather were undermined by proposals that emphasized cooperation rather than integration. This tactic would have left participating members free to pursue their own course. Left unresolved

was the question of whether there could be private ownership of nuclear materials within the community and how the Common Market would be tied to the EFURATOM treaty.’

THE FRANCO-ITALIAN INITIATIVE

With EURATOM in the doldrums, the French and Italians independently approached the United States to request far-reaching classified bilateral agreements for cooperation: the French proposed an agreement involving 1,000 kilograms of enriched uranium, and the Italians sought an agreement covering 2,500 kilograms. The Franco-Italian maneuver was audacious, and when Dulles learned that the Commission had actually welcomed the overture he severely rebuked Strauss. Invoking Eisenhower’s directive of January 11 and noting Ambassador James B. Conant’s fear of the disruptive effects of persistent United States bilateral negotiations, Dulles stated un-

equivocally: “I believe it is incumbent on us to see that we do not take actions which might make more difficult the negotiating problems of the Six Nations.” Pending the outcome of the EURATOM talks, Dulles curtly informed Strauss that the United States would suspend bilateral talks. '° Strauss, angered and no doubt hurt by Dulles’s injunction, wanted

to take the matter directly to Eisenhower, but instead he confined his reaction to Herbert Hoover, Jr., the Under Secretary of State. Not only did he believe the Administration was backing the wrong program in FURATOM, but he also thought that United States’ inconsistencies had become a major

impediment to the Atoms-for-Peace program. Strauss observed that the United States had already negotiated three bilateral agreements covering

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1956

power reactors with members of the Community of Six, namely, France, the Netherlands, and Belgium. Nevertheless, the Atomic Energy Commission was not authorized by the State Department to discuss power agreements with Italy or Germany, despite their desire to launch atomic energy programs. Meanwhile, the Commission was authorized to negotiate power bilaterals with Sweden, Norway, and Spain. Thus, as Strauss noted with some bitterness, the Commission’s role was difficult and confused. It could negotiate rather freely with states in Western Europe outside the Community of Six; but the Commission was enjoined from immediate discussions with Germany and Italy, while at the same time the Commission was col-

laborating with all other members except Luxembourg. While Strauss professed support for the Administration’s larger intentions embodied in EURATOM, he did not believe a discriminatory policy would advance Atoms for Peace in Western Europe. !!

307 THE SHADOW OF CALDER HALL

After Congress deserted Washington for the campaign hustings in August 1956, Strauss had an opportunity to reassess his position in his continuing contest with the Joint Committee over domestic nuclear power. The defeat of the Gore-Holifield bill gave him breathing space; at the very least it referred the whole question to the new Congress, which a big Eisenhower victory might well make Republican. But no one understood better than Strauss that the ultimate defeat of a government-financed power reactor program might well depend upon whether the accomplishments of private industry made federal support unnecessary. In autumn 1956 it was by no means clear that a federal program could be avoided. On October 17, Queen Elizabeth II threw the switch sending electricity from the Calder Hall reactors into the national power erid. Anticipating the British achievement, Strauss and the Administration had tried to play down Calder Hall as essentially a plutonium-production facility, which it was, that generated power only as a by-product. But Calder Hall had an enormous impact on the fledgling nuclear industry in many countries, including the United States. Sir Christopher Hinton, director of the British project, announced flatly that “the Calder Hall reactor is giving us the initial lead in the use of nuclear power and we shall be able to retain that advantage for at least a decade by improvements in this type of reactor.” '? American industrial leaders were not quick to argue the point, and Strauss could reasonably expect that the British accomplishment would at the very least rekindle a new demand for federal construction of large dualpurpose reactors in the United States when the new Congress reconvened in January. To make the British achievement even more impressive, the Ameri-

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1956

can entry in the international competition was more than a year from completion. Despite strong pressure from Strauss and the Administration, the Shippingport reactor could never have challenged Calder Hall’s completion date. Rickover and his team had already applied extraordinary measures in their efforts to accelerate design and construction, but even in fall 1956 it was already apparent that Rickover would not meet his original target for completion in February 1957. There was only so much that more exhortation and money could do to reverse the effects of labor disputes and delayed deliveries of materials. '*

NUCLEAR POWER AT HOME AND ABROAD

Strauss still had high hopes for the power demonstration reactors, but there

398 was cause for worry here, too. The question that Senator Anderson and others had raised about the safety of the proposed Fermi plant had sent a ripple of concern through the Detroit area. In September the United Automobile Workers, the American Federation of Labor, and the Congress of Industrial Organizations filed petitions for intervention and requests for public hearings on the Fermi license application. The experience that Westinghouse had gained on the Shippingport project made it possible for the company to move ahead on the design of the Yankee Atomic plant, but major decisions still remained before construction could start on the power plant at Rowe, Massachusetts. The third project in the first round, the Consumers project in Nebraska, was still struggling to be born. Almost two years after the Commission had authorized contract negotiations, the staff still had not arrived at a funding arrangement that was acceptable to both

the public power district and North American Aviation, the design and development contractor. No proposal in the second round had yet been approved, and there was growing doubt within the staff that all of them could ever be accepted. '* Both Murray and Libby gained some measure of Strauss’s determination to keep nuclear power development in the private sector when Com-

missioner Harold S. Vance raised the issue in a meeting in September 1956. It was perhaps surprising to Strauss that his long-time business acquaintance, a conservative midwestern Republican and industrial leader, should propose that the Commission construct at least two full-scale nuclear power plants to assure that the most promising reactor types were developed quickly. A self-educated engineer who had made his way to the top of the automobile industry to become president of the Studebaker Corporation, Vance had served with Strauss on several corporate boards of directors, and the two men had known each other on a first-name basis since World War II. Strauss had secured Vance’s appointment to the Commission just a year earlier to fill Joseph Campbell’s vacancy.’ Vance not

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1956

only had credentials acceptable to Strauss and the Administration, but he also seemed to possess personality traits likely to assure that he would not challenge Strauss’s leadership. At age sixty-six Vance gave the impression of being a phlegmatic, soft-spoken, and rather colorless business execulive.

Vance, however, soon proved himself capable of independent action. On September 13 he told his fellow Commissioners that they could not rely solely on industry to develop nuclear power, especially if the United States expected to win the international race with the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union. Vance believed government projects were necessary to develop some of the more promising and more difficult concepts, such as fluid-fuel reactors. Strauss immediately voiced his concern that, once the Commission opened the door, there would be no way to close it. Industry would thereafter expect the Commission to fund all development costs. Vance did not contradict Strauss directly but rather argued that win- 309 ning the international race was more important than keeping the government out of nuclear power. This opinion delighted Murray, who at last saw the prospect of gaining support for his views within the Commission. Even Libby confessed some interest in Vance’s arguments, particularly if the government were to fund development of pressurized-water reactors, the most promising type. For the first time since Strauss had become chairman,

he rather than Murray faced the possibility of being a lonely minority of one on a major policy issue. Neither Vance nor Libby, however, was yet ready to break ranks with Strauss. The Commissioners agreed only to separate the domestic and international aspects of reactor policy and consider both at a later date. '° Given the delicate balance within the Commission, Strauss laid his plans carefully. As a short-term measure, he spurred the staff to expedite proposals under the power demonstration program. Before the end of September the Commission approved contract terms for two public power projects, Consumers in Nebraska and Piqua in Ohio." This action blunted the charge by the rural cooperatives that the Commission was favoring big private utilities. On the policy issues, however, Strauss would not move until the November elections reliably forecasted the political future.

THE POLITICS OF ATOMS FOR PEACE

During the summer the Democrats geared up for the fall campaign. The Democratic platform, published on August 16, gave full credit to Roosevelt and Truman for initiating the “atomic era” but condemned the Eisenhower Administration for plunging “the previously independent and nonpartisan Atomic Energy Commission into partisan politics.” To recapture America’s lead in “the world race for nuclear power, international prestige and world

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1956

markets,” the Democrats pledged not only to accelerate the domestic civilian atomic power program but also “to give reality—life and meaning—to the atoms for peace program. We will substitute deeds for words.” '® Neither C. D. Jackson nor Gerard Smith could have quibbled with this plank. As vice-presidential candidate, Kefauver kept up his hard-hitting attack on the Atoms-for-Peace program. Describing Strauss as that “baleful figure who is [Eisenhower's] chief atomic energy adviser,” Kefauver repeatedly asserted that the President and the chairman of the Commission wanted to keep America’s atomic power production in private hands despite

the fact that both the British and the Russians had forged ahead of the United States.!° Consistent with the Democratic platform, Kefauver found no fault with the Atoms-for-Peace program except that the Administration had been too slow, too cautious, and too friendly toward big business. Strauss accepted the major role in countering Kefauver’s charges.

360 The same October day on which the senator was railing against Strauss 1n New Hampshire, the chairman defended the Atoms-for-Peace program before the New York Board of Trade. Strauss reiterated the accomplishments of the Geneva conference on peaceful uses and the provisions of the bilateral agreements for cooperation, but he highlighted the progress made toward establishing an international atomic energy agency. Predictably, he rejected Kefauver’s sharp dichotomy between public and private power. In Republican terms, the Eisenhower Administration had stripped “the iron jacket of Government monopoly . . . from the atom,” returning atomic energy to the people.”° Both the florid rhetoric of the public-private power debate and partisan criticism that the Atoms-for-Peace program lagged behind foreign competitors to a large extent missed the point. All along the President’s program had three clearly stated aims: to allocate fissionable materials to peaceful uses in medicine, agriculture, and research; to promote the production of power using atomic fuel; and to divert uranium stockpiles from the nuclear arms race. Under the stewardship of the Commission and the Department of State, the first two goals were successfully, if undramatically, advanced through bilateral agreements by summer 1956. The third objective, closely related to nuclear disarmament, required a significantly different negotiating strategy. Although Atoms for Peace was not a disarmament proposal, the United States, to achieve cooperation with the Soviet Union in establishing nuclear safeguards through an international agency, had to sacrifice both speedy and efficient negotiations. Bernhard G. Bechhoefer, a State Department ofhcer involved in planning Atoms for Peace, later observed that the most successful East-West negotiations following World War II involved patient and confidential discussions with the Russians. Unfortunately, this strategy also subjected the Eisenhower Administration to charges of being too secret and too slow after 1955 when the

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1956

Soviet Union joined the discussions relative to the International Atomic Energy Agency.?!

DISARMAMENT AND THE TEST BAN: INTERNAL DEBATE

While the Democrats ineffectually probed domestic nuclear issues, sharp differences developed within the Eisenhower Administration over Stassen’s

nuclear disarmament proposals. Predictably, the Commission had _ responded warily to Stassen’s June 29 disarmament plan. Asserting that it did not object to Stassen’s intentions but only to his methods, the Commission offered the National Security Council a detailed critique of the disarmament plan as it affected nuclear weapons. To begin with, the Commission did not concur in Stassen’s estimates concerning nuclear proliferation.

Stassen was driven by the belief that as many as twenty nations might soon 361 be armed with nuclear weapons. In dismissing this estimate as “speculative” the Commission tried to undermine Stassen’s main premise. The Commission objected to any proposal that limited testing and reduced the nuclear weapon stockpile without providing ironclad procedures for inspection and verification. There was unanimous opposition to setting July 1, 1957, as the deadline for halting the production of weapongrade fissionable material. Not only was inspection an issue, but the date was also too early for the United States to reap full advantage of the weapon improvements tested at Teapot and Redwing. Even Murray concurred.” The Commission was somewhat more conciliatory on testing. With the exception of Murray, the Commission continued to favor a test ban only as part of a general disarmament agreement that included “an effective and proven inspection system.” Nevertheless, the Commission also recognized that overriding political considerations made it advisable for the United States government to propose negotiations toward an agreement for limitations on testing. The Commission’s concession was stunning, even if Murray’s continued advocacy of a unilateral test ban distracted somewhat from

the significance of the moment. Still determined to continue the testing program, the Commission was at least willing to discuss limiting the size, number, frequency, and location of weapon tests.”° Of all the groups that wanted to ban testing, Libby believed by far the most numerous worldwide were those afraid of fallout. “They are just plain scared,” Libby observed. Admitting that he did not like the thought of his children collecting strontium-90 in their bones despite his belief that it was essentially harmless, Libby suggested a strategy to limit worldwide

fallout from testing. His idea was simple and probably unenforceable: to limit worldwide fallout to ten megatons of test detonations, divided more or less equally among the testing nations. The idea was impractical, but it did

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1956

reflect the Commission’s awareness that more than rhetoric was required to quiet public fears over fallout.* Just when the Commission was willing to consider concessions on testing, the Soviet Union unexpectedly launched a major test series. In the past the Commission had not called attention to Russian activities, but after the Soviet Union began testing on August 24 Strauss pointedly contrasted Russian secrecy with the comparative openness of test announcements by the United States. On August 31, Eisenhower noted the second Soviet shot, and on September 3 the Commission reported still a third. Finally, on September 10, the Russians announced their own fourth test. 2° Surprisingly, the Soviet’s test series did not scuttle the Commission’s search for an acceptable formula by which to limit testing. On September

3, the same day that Adlai Stevenson renewed his call for a test ban in a speech to the American Legion, the Commission organized an ad hoc com362 mittee chaired by General Alfred D. Starbird, director of military application, to study what might constitute an acceptable limitation on testing. Starbird’s committee, which believed the Soviet Union was closing the gap in delivery capability, preferred no test limitation. Besides the inspection problem, the committee predicted that a test ban would have severe impact on morale and recruiting at the national laboratories. Through rigid controls

over its scientists, the Soviet Union could maintain its testing capability despite drastic restrictions. Americans, on the other hand, could not expect to retain the best scientists and technicians without an active program. Starbird’s group also feared that the Russians might stockpile improved nuclear weapons to be tested on the eve of a general war, too late for the United States to take countermeasures.”°

Caution and skepticism aside, Starbird’s committee weighed the pros and cons of several alternatives for limiting testing. All involved risk to American security in the committee’s view, but the least risky was to “limit” testing to 1955-1956 levels. Should more stringent limitations be necessary, the committee recommended adopting some variation of Libby’s plan, perhaps limiting total yield in any two-year period to thirty megatons of atmospheric testing. Such an agreement would still require some verification, and no doubt it would be only one step toward a more comprehensive test ban.?’ Determined to find a workable disarmament formula, the President confined his discussions to Dulles, Wilson, Strauss, Radford, Stassen, and his own staff, Sherman Adams, William H. Jackson, and Amos J. Peaslee. With the possible exception of Stassen, Dulles most closely shared Eisenhower’s sense of a moral imperative. As cautious as Strauss, Dulles nonetheless viewed the nuclear arms race as an “overwhelming moral issue” that required the United States to give “highest regard to world opinion.” Although Dulles did not favor a total test ban, he was convinced that the

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1956

United States should “seek agreement on tangible forward steps toward as much as 1s possible to obtain.” In contrast to the Commission, he did not want to defer negotiated agreements “merely for lack of an all-embracing perfect plan.” 8 Eisenhower’s small inner circle of disarmament advisers, not the National Security Council, evaluated Stassen’s proposals on September 11, 1956. Both Strauss and Radford now believed that Dulles was leaning towards Stassen’s position. With Eisenhower present, Strauss wasted no time in arguing that a reliable inspection system could not be devised by July 1, 1957. Radford went even further, doubting whether an acceptable inspection system could ever be achieved. Against this pessimism, Dulles and

Stassen reminded the President that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss whether the Administration should initiate quiet exploratory consultations, beginning with the British, to determine if Stassen’s plan might

serve as the basis for negotiations. Strauss and Radford, however, could 363 not accept major portions of the proposal. Strauss stressed that the United States should continue to stockpile fissionable material at least through 1958. Production capacity had just reached the point where significant numbers of defensive weapons were being added to the stockpile. Radford concurred, observing that the United States would have to revise its war plans if nuclear stockpiling were halted in the next two years.”° As so often happened, Radford’s hardline remarks provoked an impatient response from Eisenhower. If moral arguments were not persuasive, the President was prepared to use economic ones. Citing Secretary of the Treasury Humphrey, Eisenhower argued that some alternative had to be found to the arms race if only to preserve the American economy. From the President’s perspective, mounting military expenditures, coupled with the threat of worldwide proliferation of nuclear weapons, represented threats to American security as significant as those from Russia itself. When the discussion focused on testing, Strauss doubted that the United States could ever stop completely. Even if the United States did not want to develop more powerful or more sophisticated weapons, the Commission would have to guard against deterioration in stockpiled devices, improve control of fallout, and develop related technologies such as safety. When Strauss again objected that July 1, 1957, was an unrealistic deadline, Dulles proposed that December 31, 1957, “or as soon thereafter as an effective inspection system had been installed,” would be just as acceptable. Dulles was trying to find some ground for realistic exploratory talks with American allies first, followed by negotiations with the Russians and Chinese. Although the meeting broke up inconclusively, Eisenhower forcefully restated his determination to escape the disarmament impasse; he hoped to end or limit nuclear tests and to restrict the production of fission-

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1956

able material to peaceful purposes. Those measures would calm escalating worldwide fears over fallout and nuclear war, but they could not be accomplished without effective inspection and assurances against surprise attack, both of which were also essential for a durable peace. He advised Radford to continue military planning on the assumption that no agreement would be reached. Eisenhower, however, also endorsed Stassen’s proposal in principle, directing that the United States assume “affirmative leadership” toward an agreement. Recalling the seeming hopelessness of an agreement on reunification of Austria, the President still thought that persistence with the Soviet Union might pay off. Before adjournment, he requested that the Departments of State and Defense, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the Joint Chiefs prepare a joint paper, with dissenting views if necessary, for presidential approval by October 15, 1956.°° Eisenhower's hope for Soviet cooperation received a setback on the

364 very day of the White House disarmament meeting. On September 11, Premier Bulganin rejected the idea of controlling the production of fissionable materials without at the same time outlawing the use of nuclear weapons. The one, Bulganin claimed, was useless without the other. Conversely,

Bulganin argued against linking a test ban with a general disarmament agreement as Strauss insisted. In language not unlike that used by Dulles and Stassen, Bulganin described the termination of testing as the “first important step” toward eventual abolition of nuclear arms.*! While the President’s disarmament advisers labored to meet the October 15 deadline, few outside Eisenhower's inner circle realized the depth of his commitment to end the arms race. Eisenhower believed the matter was too urgent, and delicate, for political bickering. As his sharp tone with Strauss and Radford had indicated, he lost all patience with attempts to exploit the issue for partisan advantage.

THE STEVENSON CHALLENGE

On September 5, running on a Democratic platform that accused the Republicans of plunging “the previously independent and non-partisan Atomic Energy Commission into partisan politics,” Stevenson thrust the test-ban issue into the presidential campaign during a foreign policy speech to the American Legion. Attempting to capture something of the peace issue for the Democrats, Stevenson told the Legionnaires that he favored an end to the draft as well as an end to testing megaton hydrogen bombs.” Although Eisenhower's contempt was veiled, he did not hesitate to respond vigorously to his own political advantage. In what he called his first major address of the 1956 campaign, Eisenhower flatly rejected the possibility of ending the draft under current world conditions. Nor would

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1956

he endorse any “theatrical national gesture” to end testing without reliable inspection. “We cannot salute the future with bold words,” the President warned, “while we surrender it with feeble deeds.” *? Eisenhower’s speech, however, was largely focused on other matters and revealed that disarmament and the test ban had not yet become major campaign issues. When Stevenson responded to Eisenhower on September 21 in Silver Spring, Maryland, he elevated the rhetoric only slightly. Like the President, the Democratic candidate also addressed the broad issues of the campaign. Nevertheless, Stevenson gave highest priority to defense questions, including “the incalculable effects of unlimited hydrogen bomb testing.” If he were guilty of grandstanding, Stevenson observed, then he was in the good company of Pope Pius XII, Sir Anthony Eden, representatives of the Baptist, Unitarian, Quaker, and Methodist churches, and Commissioner Murray among other sincere and thoughtful people. On the same day Mur-

ray issued his own press release denying that he had any partisan motives 369 in raising the question of testing policy; he called for the end of multimegaton weapon testing and greater effort on smaller weapons.

THE PRESIDENT STANDS FIRM

To Eisenhower’s distress, neither Stevenson nor Murray would abandon the

test-ban question. In Minneapolis on September 29 and in New Jersey a few days later, Stevenson reiterated his proposals and challenged Eisenhower to debate the issues. Murray, in classified correspondence, once again goaded Kisenhower about limiting tests below one hundred kilotons. The President icily referred the letter to the National Security Council with-

out a hint to Murray that Strauss was working on just such a proposal. Eisenhower was willing to allow Vice-President Nixon to counter Stevenson’s offensive to a point, but ultimately the President was drawn into the public debate.*° Following his curt reply to Murray, Eisenhower issued a_ public statement on thermonuclear testing. He expressed regret that the issue had

been raised in a matter that could only lead to confusion at home and misunderstanding abroad. Only his closest advisers could fully understand the context of the President’s remarks. Ambiguously, he noted that while

testing was, and continued to be, an indispensable part of the defense program, the United States had “consistently affirmed and reaffirmed its readiness—indeed its strong will—to restrict and control both the testing and the use of nuclear weapons under specific and supervised international disarmament agreements.” *° Only the most astute observer would have detected in the President’s words the major shift in Administration disarmament policy.

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1956

Stevenson was still unaware that the Administration was preparing a major diplomatic initiative to limit testing. Eisenhower continued his broad defense of the Administration’s record, including, but not featuring, comments on his defense record. Even former President Truman, who took great delight in lambasting Nixon, would not join Stevenson in criticizing nuclear tests. Hubert Humphrey, speaking in his role as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Disarmament, urged that the United States “give careful consideration to seeking agreement on banning tests of large nuclear weapons.” Humphrey’s cautious announcement, however, scarcely helped the Democrats’ cause. Stevenson’s frustration mounted even as Eisenhower’s advisers hammered out the new disarmament proposals. In Seattle on October 9, Stevenson brought the nuclear issue front and center by accusing the Republicans, including the President, of willful political distortion. Taking to heart the fact that Ralph Lapp

366 had endorsed his position, Stevenson boldly attacked Eisenhower’s entire nuclear policy and record, even Atoms for Peace. Reminiscent of earlier Democratic criticism, Stevenson tried to contrast the government’s weapon program with the Commission’s failure to build a single power reactor.* On October 11, senior representatives from the Commission, State Department, and Defense Department worked toward a compromise on a new disarmament policy. The Commission continued to have reservations

about the effectiveness of any inspection system acceptable to the Russians, but on testing it expressed its willingness to move “progressively” to limit nuclear and thermonuclear tests. As yet, the Commission had conceded little while endorsing in principle the idea of limiting testing, no doubt in the belief that any specific agreement would take years to achieve. *®

Somehow the press caught wind of the fact that the Administration was entertaining new disarmament proposals. On the same day that his senior advisers were conferring, a reporter asked the President to confirm rumors that the Administration was considering elimination of the draft and halting thermonuclear tests. Eisenhower remarked that the journalist was telling him things about the Administration he had never heard. “| am quite

sure no one has . . . suggested to me that we eliminate the draft in my Administration,” he continued evasively. Then without even mentioning nuclear testing he declared, “Now, I tell you frankly I have said my last words on these subjects.” The President had successfully sidestepped the issue, knowing full well that within four days he expected to receive a coordinated report on the implementation of the Stassen proposals. As a result, Stevenson continued to campaign blindly on the disarmament issue. In San Diego, he blasted Eisenhower for his failure in leadership and lack of new ideas. There could be no “last word” on the hydrogen bomb, Stevenson rebutted, until mankind had been freed from the menace of nuclear incineration.””

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1956

GROWING SUPPORT FOR STEVENSON

To be sure, Stevenson did receive some support. Former Secretary of the Air Force Thomas K. Finletter, now chairman of Stevenson’s New York state campaign, denied that Stevenson really wanted a unilateral test ban. Finletter, once so critical of Oppenheimer, claimed not to be alarmed by Stevenson’s rhetoric; rather he did not see how anyone could object to the Democrat’s promotion of arms control and disarmament. In addition, numerous scientists now began to speak out in Stevenson’s behalf. In the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Bentley Glass, a Johns Hopkins biology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences’ fallout committee, lent credence to Stevenson’s fears by warning that carelessness with ionizing radiation could well lead to genetic bankruptcy from which “there might be no recovery, for nation or for mankind.” From the California In-

stitute of Technology ten scientists, led by physics professors Thomas 367 Lauritzen and Matthew Sands, called for a “free and open discussion” of Stevenson’s proposals. “Time is running out,” the California scientists declared, “with an implacability that we ignore at our peril.” Nevertheless, a street-corner poll by the New York Herald Tribune revealed that voters welcomed the lively discussion but generally sided with President Eisenhower

in the debate.” Encouraged by the public response to his speeches, and anxious to score a major breakthrough in the campaign, Stevenson decided to devote a televised address exclusively to the issues of disarmament, nuclear testing, and presidential leadership. He recruited Clinton Anderson and Stuart Symington to appear with him on the program despite the fact that both senators wanted him to tone down his remarks. Speaking from Chicago on October 15, ironically on the day Eisenhower had set for his disarmament advisers to report, Stevenson denied that his proposals for a thermonuclear test ban had been politically motivated. Still, he thought the issue appropriate for debate during a democratic election. He noted the power of a twenty-megaton bomb—as “if every man, woman, and child on earth were each carrying a 16 pound bundle of dynamite—enough to blow him to smithereens, and then some.” He described the danger of fallout from strontium-90—“the most dreadful poison in the world.” A mere tablespoonful shared by everyone in the world would produce dangerously high levels of radioactivity in bones, perhaps causing cancer or threatening reproduction. Stevenson added quickly that he did not want “to be an alarmist” or to claim that radioactive levels were too high. He wanted to stop the tests, however, before a maniac like Hitler or other irresponsible regimes fouled the atmosphere with tests of their own. Citing Stassen on the risks of nuclear proliferation, Stevenson then criticized Nixon, his favorite campaign target, for exaggerating the difficulty of establishing safeguards. According to Stevenson, scientists and even the President himself had already

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1956

acknowledged that the United States could “detect any large explosion anywhere.” Ultimately, he scolded Eisenhower for wanting to shove the hydrogen bomb under the table.*!

With the election less than three weeks away, Stevenson had succeeded in making disarmament and nuclear testing major campaign issues. Unfortunately for the Democratic candidate, the advantage was mostly with President EKisenhower. Stevenson’s running mate, Estes Kefauver, almost burlesqued the issue a few days later when he predicted that H-bomb ex-

plosions might blow the earth off its axis by sixteen degrees, drastically affecting the seasons. This bit of silliness was immediately refuted by Ralph Lapp, who pointed out that the earth’s weight was so great that even millions of tons of exploding TNT would have little effect on the earth’s rotation or attitude. Other unnamed scientists interviewed by the New York Times called Kefauver’s claims “incredible.” ”

368 Kefauver’s irresponsible claims aside, Stevenson’s proposals on Hbomb testing sparked sharp debate within the scientific community, emphasizing again how tightly the bomb had fused science and _ politics. Stevenson had enlisted Harold Brown, a geochemist from Cal Tech, to be his campaign adviser on the test ban and disarmament. Arrangements were also quickly made to obtain scientific advice for Kefauver by recruiting David L. Hill, a Los Alamos atomic scientist and former chairman of the Federation of American Scientists, to serve on Kefauver’s staff. Henry Smyth, the Commission’s lone dissenter in the Oppenheimer case and now a professor of physics at Princeton, also supported Stevenson’s call for a test ban. Across the nation scientists signed petitions and letters calling for

a test ban or public debate of the issue. As reported in the press, the number of scientists supporting Stevenson grew steadily. In addition to the ten scientists from Cal Tech, five nuclear scientists from Argonne National Laboratory endorsed Stevenson’s efforts. In New York, eleven physics professors at Columbia University, where Eisenhower had once been president, took Stevenson’s side on the H-bomb issue. Twenty-four scientists at Washington University in St. Louis, thirty-seven faculty members from City College of New York, and sixty-two nuclear scientists from Brookhaven National Laboratory variously subscribed to Stevenson’s position. *’

THE ADMINISTRATION'S STANCE

The Eisenhower Administration could also enlist prominent scientists to support its position while it continued to assess the effects of nuclear explosions. Early in October, while Stevenson was preparing his test-ban proposals, the Commission again reviewed estimates of the consequences of nuclear warfare. Spurred by General Gavin’s testimony in the spring, preliminary studies by the division of biology and medicine confirmed that

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1956

strontium-90 presented the greatest fallout hazard after a nuclear attack. In the short run, perhaps 50 percent of the crops might be contaminated and 35 to 60 percent of the unsheltered animals might be killed within the fallout area, with highest mortality closest to ground zero. Necessarily the vague estimates depended upon numerous factors, including bomb yield and weather conditions. The classified studies generally confirmed the National Academy of Sciences’ projection concerning genetic mutations. Research conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Weather Bureau could not rule out the possibility that a massive nuclear exchange might usher in a new “ice age” should vast amounts of dust thrown into the stratosphere reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth. Long-term effects, however, were considered negligible when compared with the immediate holocaust that would be unleashed in all-out nuclear war. The Commission’s estimates, however, were limited by the fact that it did not have access to war plans and intelligence reports on prospective targets. Conse- 369 quently, General Starbird recommended that the issue be referred to an interdepartmental group to be convened by the National Security Council. Despite the uncertainties of nuclear war, the Commission remained confident that nuclear testing was safe. On October 12, Willard Libby addressed the American Association for the Advancement of Science on “Cur-

rent Research Findings on Radioactive Fallout.” Libby also noted that strontium-90 was the most hazardous of the many radioactive elements found in fallout. But he did not believe that the total amount of radioactive

debris in the stratosphere, estimated at twenty-four megatons of fission products, had increased since 1955. The Redwing tests, conducted from May into July, had successfully held thermonuclear fallout to a minimum, he reported.” Building on Libby’s report, Shields Warren, former director of the Commission’s division of biology and medicine, lashed out at Stevenson’s campaign. Warren, a prominent authority on medical radiology and scientific director of the Cancer Research Institute of the New England Deaconess Hospital in Boston, telegraphed Strauss that Stevenson’s remarks on the dangers of testing needed correcting. Citing Libby’s data, Warren asserted that testing could be continued for thirty years at the current rate without creating a significant genetic hazard or raising background levels more than a fraction. On the other hand, he argued, “to permit us to fall behind the Russians is disastrous. To wait for them to catch up to us is stupid.” ©

Strauss and Robert Cutler, the President’s national security adviser, assumed the lead in preparing the Administration’s counterattack. Strauss urged the general advisory committee to help disabuse the public of Stevenson’s inaccurate campaign statements about the “biological effects of ra-

diation, fall-out hazards from test activities, [and the] relative degree of progress in atomic power in Russia, England and the U.S.” Without dissent

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1956

from the committee, Robert E. Wilson suggested that his fellow members use their speaking engagements to present the correct technical information to the public. Warren C. Johnson, newly elected chairman of the committee, asked Strauss to provide a working list of erroneous and misleading statements. For his part, Cutler arranged for twelve distinguished scientists to meet the President and then to express their indignation over the unwarranted political exploitation of scientific issues.’

Ultimately, Eisenhower decided that only he could effectively counter Stevenson’s campaign against testing. Perhaps recalling the usefulness of the thermonuclear chronologies that had been prepared by the Joint

Committee and the Commission during the Oppenheimer crisis, Kisenhower on October 17 asked Strauss, Charles E. Wilson, and Dulles to draft

a “complete history” of the hydrogen bomb, with limits set by security regulations. The history was intended to set the record straight regarding 370 the Administration’s commitment to both peace and security. James Hagerty admitted that he did not know whether the paper would become the President’s “last words” on the subject. It all depended on the subsequent campaign.*

THE INTERNATIONAL AGENCY: BORN AT LAST

As election day neared, delegates from eighty-one nations gathered at United Nations headquarters in New York, to debate the draft statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Convened on September 20, the conference was not a rubber stamp, even though most difficult negotiations among the nuclear powers had been completed by the twelve-nation working group during the previous spring. The Russians again unsuccessfully sought agency membership for the Chinese communists and reiterated their insistence that national sovereignty not be sacrificed to the international agency. For the most part, these demands were pro forma. More serious were the reservations on safeguards put forth by the Indians; this discussion occupied more than half the time of the conference. The draft statute, which satisfied the Commission’s minimum standards for safeguards, authorized the agency both to approve the design of

any specialized equipment or facility and to require the maintenance of operating records accounting for source and fissionable materials. The agency would also have the right to request progress reports and to have access “to all places, persons, and data” necessary to determine whether diversion of materials had taken place. In the event of noncompliance the agency could suspend or terminate all assistance and withdraw both materials and equipment. To enforce these provisions, the agency was empowered to create a staff of inspectors who would also be responsible for enforcing health and safety measures.”

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1956

The Indians complained that even these relatively benign provisions might seriously interfere with the economic growth of member states. Specifically, India objected to provisions that included source materials in the accounting system and granted the agency virtually unrestricted rights over weapon-grade reactor by-products. Control over reactor “wastes” was considered essential to prevent stockpiling for weapon development. The eventual compromise involved some sleight-of-hand and judicious rewording of the technical language of the draft statute. In the end the agency retained the accountability for source materials but was limited in its control over reactor by-products so that member states could, under continuing agency safeguards, use by-products material as needed “for research or in reactors, existing or under construction.” *° With compromise on safeguards accomplished, the conference on October 23 unanimously adopted the statute. Once again the stage was set

for a dramatic American gesture. This time, Strauss, appearing on behalf 371 of the President, announced that the United States would make available to the new agency 5,000 kilograms of uranium-235 to be taken from the 20,000 allotted to peaceful uses by Eisenhower in February, provided the agency and the United States could come to agreeable terms. Despite this offer, however, Gerard Smith reported that the American announcement had been received with apathy. Apparently, nations interested in developing nuclear power reactors preferred to work either directly with the United States through bilateral arrangements or through regional groups that might share the enormous costs of the plants.*! The successful negotiation of the statute just prior to the presidential elections and the numerous bilateral agreements of cooperation, however,

did not reveal the main thrust of America’s peaceful atomic diplomacy. Officially, the United States continued to support all approaches related to the international development of the peaceful atom—the international agency and bilaterals, as well as the Organization of European Economic Cooperation (OKEC) and other regional associations—but under directions

from President Eisenhower, the United States would continue to devote major attention to the reluctant EURATOM group.”

THE BULGANIN LETTER

On October 18, the same day that the President had offered his “last words” on testing, the complexion of the presidential campaign changed dramatically when Soviet Premier Bulganin wrote Eisenhower criticizing the Administration for its political stand on the subject. Bulganin professed understanding and implied forbearance of American electoral polemics, but he could not ignore what he claimed was deliberate distortion of Soviet policy. The Soviet premier was pointedly critical of Dulles, who was ac-

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1956

cused of making “direct attacks against the Soviet Union and its peaceloving foreign policy.” Following additional polemics of his own, Bulganin renewed his offer of a test ban by endorsing the views of “certain prominent

public figures in the United States.” As far as the Russians were concerned, Bulganin charged, negotiation of a test ban had failed only because

the United States and some of its allies had bargained in bad faith; the Americans, Bulganin charged, renounced their own proposals just when the Russians accepted them.” Kisenhower was furious. Bulganin’s public criticism of Dulles and

his transparent support of Stevenson were bad enough, but his clumsy eleventh-hour meddling in American politics was intolerable. Lewis Strauss was in Battle Creek, Michigan, on October 19 to address a meeting of the Joint United States—Canadian Civil Defense Committee. Dulles called him to arrange a meeting that evening, however late,

372 to discuss the President’s response to the Bulganin letter. Dulles, understandably indignant at both the tone and content of the letter, wanted the President to reject the note. Strauss, however, viewed the letter as a major windfall, which, if handled carefully, could be turned to considerable advantage for the President. First, Strauss thought it extremely important that Eisenhower, not the Soviets, release the letter to the public, even if a reply was not ready. By doing so the Administration could regain the propaganda initiative. Second, the reply should vigorously repudiate the Russian’s personal attack on the Secretary of State and the shocking attempt of a foreign government to interfere in American domestic affairs. Above all, the letter must be answered, not rejected, because the American public might interpret such a formal diplomatic response as a presidential attempt to duck the issue.™

On Sunday morning, October 21, Strauss, Dulles, Milton Eisenhower, Under Secretary of State Hoover, and Hagerty gathered in the President’s study on the second floor of the White House living quarters. The President and Dulles accepted Strauss’s suggestions, but the hope of releasing the Soviet note in Washington had already been foiled when the Russians published it even before Eisenhower had a reliable translation in hand. Eisenhower used this as a pretext for immediately publishing his own reply. Eisenhower’s withering temper, infamous among his inner circle but rarely witnessed in public, was directed squarely at the Soviet premier with little worry about the diplomatic consequence. Eisenhower wrote Bulganin that, were he a diplomat assigned to Washington, he would have been declared persona non grata and sent packing back to Moscow. Eisenhower insisted on taking the letter personally because it both attacked the Secretary of State and impugned the President’s integrity. Still, Eisenhower expressed his willingness to keep lines of communication open despite the Russian’s departure from accepted international practice.” The exchange between Bulganin and Eisenhower was disastrous for

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1956

Stevenson, just as Strauss anticipated. The President’s white paper on nuclear weapons and disarmament was now hardly needed and contributed little to the remaining campaign or to subsequent diplomatic negotiations. From Chicago, Stevenson attempted to disassociate himself from Bulganin’s ploy by denouncing the Russian’s interference. Somewhat lamely, Stevenson ccuntered that in reality Bulganin preferred Eisenhower. More to the point, the Democratic candidate declared that the hydrogen bomb remained the real issue in the presidential campaign. Unfortunately, as the Los Angeles Times commented, Stevenson had been flanked, with no retreat. It was not, of course, that anyone really believed that Stevenson was a friend of communism or had intentionally played the Russian game. Rather, in the field of nuclear weapons, Eisenhower, former Army chief of staff, commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and President, obviously held an enormous advantage in both experience and access to information.

A special public opinion poll conducted by George Gallup indicated that 373 Americans opposed a nuclear test ban by a two-to-one margin. There is no question that Bulganin’s heavy-handedness hurt Stevenson on the test-ban issue. Stevenson did not, as some had feared, derail Eisenhower’s determination to seek a nuclear test ban.* Indeed, the presidential campaign, for all the sound and fury, probably did not delay the eventual test moratorium of 1958.

SUEZ, HUNGARY, AND THE NATIONAL ELECTION

The remainder of the presidential campaign was virtually engulfed by foreign developments, greatly to the President’s advantage. The Middle East

exploded on October 29 when Israel assaulted the Sinai, followed by a combined British and French invasion of Egypt near the Suez Canal. There-

after, on November 4, Russian soldiers marched into Hungary and ruthlessly trampled the revolution. Two days later on November 6 Americans reelected Eisenhower in a landslide victory that exceeded his 1952 win over Stevenson. Americans seemed both appreciative of Eisenhower for the “peace and prosperity” he had brought to the nation and confident that he

would deal firmly with the Russians and other threats to international stability.

NUCLEAR ISSUES IN POLITICS

For the first time atomic energy had become a major issue in a presidential campaign; it was no accident. Since Operation Candor and the Atoms-forPeace speech in 1953, Eisenhower had self-consciously determined to include the American public in atomic energy discussions to the extent na-

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1956

tional security permitted. The awesome power of hydrogen weaponry and the great potential of the peaceful atom made it imperative that nuclear energy be a part of the nation’s political agenda. Although Stevenson was unable to exploit the nuclear issue, by the same token he was not decisively hurt by his advocacy of a test ban and disarmament. With or without the nuclear debate, Eisenhower, who carried forty-one states with about 58 percent of the vote, would have won reelection handily. The 1956 presidential election, however, provided Americans their first opportunity to vote on political issues involving the future of atomic energy. If not exactly a national referendum on the subject, the election clearly endorsed the atomic energy policies of the Eisenhower Administration.

374

- NSE ARS : , SSSarRANA ' MAGS ce

a a Ro NOR Mga g le.

: os : TAS SON Mose tee AN

Noe pee":. Sg a A. Naan PRS 4Noe:

a ° ES Sy Beek. Mt 3 Sie WAL See . y : ee ag . = ee NS SSE AEE Ss Ng Wea a . Q See Se ,

(CRO . Ss%Seaof: RON . ewe 1 RS | a“4a = ~¥ N x 8asPENG . . San is= t, 7 xCBX Se Nn| ae as : os SSagress 4|X 3 EX. AN a*. SS 2.“BSS =PERM et 4 Akse: . Coe Xs" ax: ee :Saie.Y& *SES , 7eo Ree NE . os ae 8aEa >Sk DEER SN OSS -&acee Soak aR : ee ‘2:

“ Ss “ RS

;: ag “Y oP) " > ee ~~ wee x : BeSa OYa>.os ry ;"Bes. ~ «: RePo... s aS _ By

. oY ‘ . . . ‘ ‘ . _ a] N bd °

Atomic Energy Commissioners and the general manager at Washington Headquarters, fall 1953. left tolef nght: Commissioners M. Zuckert, D. Smyth, Lewis L. 23.Seated, Seated, ight: C ISSl I EKugene M. Zuckert, He Henry D. Smyth, Lewis | Strauss (Chairman), Thomas E. Murray, Joseph Campbell, and General Manager Marion W. ?-hotoby byElton Elton Lord. Lord Boyer. Photo

1 Ea

1 ea “R SeaEB Yogi: neg %. Ba Gees. >re %«4Ly free x: Gib: Me, a.Bg y a... CS ga ME eoRe ws :Ba 4eBEE “ys fl| PeLk IBJ : eee

KigG Te + wifi aes

:soe ease .og Eg: 4 CS .Py os Seee ae a..ai= oe PEE g Giger : eo .“yg, Bey osDe. ER ieee =z Ey , : E : a . %: ;Bor mo i«= eee yg . ia i. za; Siew eis Lt VET a xe Yi 4 CFE ESD 2Se en, Za Mie. rnOEaeON(0et {OS SRDS a a4

0 SASSER P ETO Ta «il SEG ie q fee GEASS gage SLL ee Cott... alieLP heeo, ae .igo a . .Ff 4 POR Oe. ep eg Bi. boat SE gga OL ed .ie ieque ‘a Bw -Tig thme FABEE BY: roe Bee ge ee oa Be iggy OT GO OLPLES OEE 8OOo. bee eee :;Mey EE SMe. My EE

. uh, Se We Re Ge

Lol Wt IGG ZR : . : “Dige . a See. Pee Sag ho Ry 1. Pa

“ig : - Ks “eo y, Gy Ma es eae SEM ee gs ONeeOME NNER; [|OG. Jan eee ce Pee. ae a — me. Bee. : Be eae :. . gill Bo, Gan .; :SEEEEEER ES. BRO? ala eee: Bern. LON, «sn RIM ES 3 . . . no, . ne a GLEE IGE RRO, ROY bgt SE. 1 Lo SL,LOS OOO Ve . - “ .4 “sy Ebay. wee 6:5: ira oo OZ; a a . vo, FE... HCH. PG

. -?az; Ce eePor,a °. we OBEY .i:BEES ST DS LLL LE Se amYet glee dB Lip Ss . . Le: BA eeleem NymyBy 7Ufeee iis. i ee LEME TEE “

; Ba B.S LG "

4 5 SUGEEST

a on ;

“i x a ae ; , a “ “ wo. ; we , &. . S Pa ‘ bd ©N2 °am) € ¢° Bigg TG Sl

me 4

&, "OT ill

~ iMP2”

Ke ”B ‘.g ie"Baba .~ Mie «sain ay . :E:E % %. “ay % gas . By. 3 Z Lr = 7 ~GE, Bin“Ce oy,OT, * YEE BC ,. OEE BE aii he up i re Lean, we EL GE GAIL as. ” SpE Boje ee Se RES “ * QB . t_ YM , .

sg aeeg:ee ; a se. “ait .

rr , og y ° ; Ya RE ag ¥ a

ut: the oe dwitty, oat” 3 Z we 1 yf od Be cay

~~ ye. .

‘«heirsd at~“hi €k in hi 2, 1954. D Robert O

une 2, . Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, seated at his desk in his office at the Institute

di ithd € £d »th€d ce 7 ~l 2of |hi€ a)

for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey, ponders response to the Gray board decision announced the previous ay recommen Ing wit rawal O is security ciearance.

i aE — HONE es gToe Soiee : 2 Se Ce eee eae CE ERE NSS SEXY fi 8 Ses Cc ee aN ce .IW’ Iie Sees PRES G S oe 4 haw. .., 4-ye _pe :“sd CNgge Bice | OS Day PT pe £+“Bes : ahe, Wi ae a Gunes aER Ge &Saga oe

pees aMg 2.ME “hig eee BDPOET Ye, Rehis vg4"Bees ‘iy: PE EsCER Rupe, & :ee Be Bei. omen”. "QO Lo| ae ee lle ve a ae Sie. aan OU a isla ee ey, ee Ce yen . a ‘an ee, ea ae aie” Get “a Te oa hy . ss “2 Wiss... aaa i es Mesiice’ ° ” Ces a Mls TE: (lam ee ee

Pp : ‘SS 3 3yg .. TELE ae “yg i ia, TEE e. Yarra Bn ae ’ :, -™ -ha4_ A me wae UNE ie. EB. p“ .PRG hei, AME y4 2GUE EL payee °F ?tiny, i .. ¥Fy, See Be. OE Bepsss' y ¢ ONG on Bee f:bs . leg : “GRBs ORL 4 oo 3 Oy ae be Gi Oe Lid ate * prey: * . * ¥ %% WA. LEE ey am fa aee’ é ages Soi i gt RS SGGG YY oy . on .g:° *- .. 4fe °atl“Z Nh BD fe . von a i Mm, Mee a ey A Ea i ne DE a 7 # PE & a Bs 6 eg 2 st a ; % ; LE TSI © . ~ rs 7 , i... LOT ' “ a ’ A “Sie Cee, Ba sta me, - . % Bey. ey eae ae, . iy pl as OIE: Sy Fo __ .gfiilllmgsiati:::

Seat eee ae : oa Poe as MiG “ 3 te WDE Ya mo. : ee * ve ‘ve ~ ee es OS ee Atego. me oot, ThA Tee Le? Te

He D ey i ©. c Br LL RERRELL, LP

Leg:. 4 %¢ a by. vitK: Ba. he ‘” iy: oy, u% 96” wk Pe neigfitass ntodOren: Saar SESE: dys + Oh, a. % Oy. *

7

GYL . naing ipa dpy::. Lt ° 7n/a ob .-LY “age- .ELE SEGEOGELEL =: :“4EeG,7, fess ; ae 7aa . TS mo Seige BAG ROR aiie eeLOGIE ae et ey, -pee % “@ ia 5Mo 0,ehh SRR: 00g 4OT ..Ee MAO OTE OE Ee oaon ye G .. agGy la BO ls EE es llalstho 4F aBf mi 4 % ’ Ch PT 4 OD a i re : | “F ”Hoes, & 3 a 5rhGe ae oa pea Rl A” he ee : OE 7 eC SlTBae Ml iaAGE nn on“;AF KG . Y .a3ee oY aeweMS my a” 4SeaBae %* ney a, ms _ 27 .BB aa

ree oe ; . Mi EZ ” Le SET : 5 Oe EOE: GP ii, B “A TRO COO By pp QE EA

e:Seg -:::a aye Ri e LHS OE ing: 4 TREY, Be agEeCO ‘ Toa .ogay: yo MOE oea “Ge iy x, -R"Di a. OP 7RE SE LILA aaae. ae Sia ae ame lepead BRB Se, 7bge5o . ER ot iIGE BhOD Lo 20 he aml, ean LALGERED eswe. 4Tog Se 3Gc, :ligg aANOS Hs. aBin, ES 2.. Pee oe . on fg Fe. Be Yas wit 3:ES: 7MR Oome ROR I og, hEieLO. EDE OMI pra ee27: Cy, Se “pte BY re,Be OSC aS SSAPBBIERG, see |EE RR Ceaa -ce . ies: Thy. Ts ;ip ppatpgy” ak ee P: “ye 4Oe LIPS yy ke Mi .05,07 oy . poe Fay aaRes: Bs LSE” SER eae We, Oe REO OO 8Gf Pas ied ‘hie... fee LY a, a..c.: | Aa eens

}882Iwe Ue «cl ky i yg. eo 2. fee TY ;Te TB OES ifn TIME ae3 ty Ss 7. er *LIER: Lae BR: : . WE. «ame %TE i, pie 2 Rony a”‘— =a5 Pe ay % ° SUR y : Rig, a yy a DB “tg Yi. a “ « % Dy Pc. Oe . "iy, F noe OM Wags: OE Me, ee ag OM “tty ts. j vr ee Spee 6 ‘ai “ RR Me, * Lea PET me EE SB. . . : Lif. ; BOL Ce Wp Pee D 43 am : oye 4 y LL Lees. HELE . a , 8 ify Ena Lae: ays “SEE Tig, vetene, ET: GUE ;“fag 1 PE Cebit . se ee 7 URS OY BEY Bie, RS 90-7°"-\ JL . oe :ee SB By ee : 79 a Bron ee. “Se ffee LES os “ TRL G+ SPP :elo Be (a i gee. oO Perens EeAGS Ge GGG + SRS. age EaLGE: EGE: . GGFR ye" aan Eee: ” EMS :. RY i o YE IBGE . TREES. : ° *. Paste aunES ae 8 og,ay Giicy oe a4: . , eeeai,5aeGs AED ae “Gor aes ae ey, Se era DO Mak 2 FI ga Soy, Be. CEES TTS aan 7 i AE a a

RR ea ee ae ww

ee er NWN Ww S. iON AX NE WARE MXC SASS -ooass Fe We NS eS SS a SASS LSE SNE VEEN WS SSSA a3w~g WS: LN

ira | 2g ee cs) ee AES Sa wet ) a }iS }N SS ees nn egy” gg Ls 238 .Ss : s . ec \ Sa =“ eS a IS OES oY BS sg = . ce NS Cees NRG See, . |re‘

q\\een ees : : | .: ces ue fl . NSF F : | | | SWS . . . Bosses. Acc anannanits . og oe So ;a, WEE eal .. , ee SE REN Ree SET 28h RE QRS.wees AN 7 RS RN ee ES a re ISSESBSS SSRRS RWENE ALES

OE SQ - Os est vos vO Cos ONES SOE SMECCY >

~ a wewee ; . * 5 cr»ameneennnne eens es ROREOCESoashane s owe 3| ‘: SS SS eae us cemasrnnaee te3AS Beaeen Seen > : ¢ : eek ¥ 7-, oo STS OTN) ATTN GEESE UB COASTS AI Gee a . FO

- 4 og EX RQYERENS EES NES SSN NN ee ee woe gS HERES § Ligeti s ia ces Rf igs NA me >" “ \ . . ER: SNL ISSIR S N RARER ES RP ELE ER SLI SES | 8 Bas Sos POESSORT Lae TLS SIPs , ' ,

BRNNIN CR EERE RS 8 RP SLLEL ES se: oe inner |

ASN AYneNSS AK itor gigseri Pegrecuse RSS Se ialatalh IRR. o ,; RE ELV SSE ES ROASSESY RREESS AS ERS cerca —pec : /SES on .SS veee ape TEST EES ES Eggns 3 N TS ESS NlNIN RaRAN 2)SESS: ERE LEE ;isSESRRYESTE ns ona

—— —eeee ne ER 4SEG Ay,|\;eeog ,™ ; wap HEE AES SISSIES \ ~. ee ag.. ore — 3 SEEN A ANSE SUGGS 8 4 oe oseeneette ome woes ELA Ss GUISE SECS ee ES ma BES REED NEE ETETSTE a F v OA

eet ; ASRS ae eee a a oF ed ’ Ef :

— —. wen ; ve Sere Sis SENSES EE ERE USS RAES §= wee JESU UES HEIL EAE 3SSESS : SS . 2. dye SEES SO tp SEETEAREE 8..=«N ::xX :‘A _ 2ma gid RRR CH SST a SEE

8 _ ~~ f ; a a Sena eet oN ¥ ,. ? z N ; x Ls i 2=SRS :: ’ :. oSwg BE VIN . Y oa SENS.” SO EEE Pe eghag§ Bs rn RRR BASS i i NVR Pee .oe | SRS _< @ 8MOPEDS T SSeS NGS ; :ai.ERR «Ne NS‘ .+ MCSE Keg4Sas 4ieot SEATS OSE Tg yl pestis: ES ESSARY ENS Yo SELENE x SEMEL PTTAE LIES CLISEIETUY . Sex2g WEA RAAT:RRR ENN NS: : eats st a EMS COLSISTOELTS UHL At PAELESEEL :$ \

POwoSsegNSS WSSAS Ky ES %:EE t COREE GATE Ria cadres N Wes\\\ REN eS TNE gels Ue AEST SEE SSN, pee ee \ .

} ses S| QAR: i coseAS Bian maces po gee RE TESEICUALTSTTELE TENSeee A. Ree. eo EX oy ES" BASS ? FASS SSS SSasSSA ESSE. A. Oe SV ea SSeereeT SealWER ee : say OCaeSS

Ne RRS RES ~ egy nes PRR . Pr EEESe CHOSE oe aw ACN,'-..We €-§QS Vee Oe .. os .Loe ; “gie.SNE OE : Ww \ CC :Sow phen fy % > JOM PS blis . SAY \ eS z 4 ; gas HE BE AWWW \\\ i\. LO ‘ae .= x| ee oi SAR Bow. OR-.ESR EASA SNSa. & ae :R\ na=< :WW « ~ ge “ 4 2G : a.: ed . SES 4g we Se So fe ee fe: Hie 7. £4 “US SEE DRE MP x 4 (iy :. ae #3 SIS * as rg EL, y ae a olf, Z g oy. oe : oo, OU re egGe .ry : ff Bre 5: -“ Sa SR 7 Se Be i._% ON 12 wo , jCee PES ve os ;5G:4 4gay en OF tt aerope wl RESE: - geeee:. GaB “we oy sia . ce” S Mel ae meg en a ec Ca “ By Oe ods

yn .- ae é | & § BLE «

JEEL see, the Srey 3SE an tHe aa ialpUSES AIT areEES ts Uy ga 4G, B°7, Pa GY “: vige DM SELL .The 496 bes See *UFO ee Gouge womens OM CES ”. oy 4 ene , so aE + ft ’“phe bili Peg: TES ey ale a, ree ay ~ A De: he “ee c 4 2 he eS Lh Ree ger ms cna 8 a “ AOI gs taasuy oy. g q : HORI GED 00 STD es Be . i ." te) wy Lo RES aan 1 Ee YOM CO ae Pe. SL i, Me SEE L_ EO a Kins! . * t fe p oa . MR ESA GE LOE ay ann I ta TE OR, a ERT le LO eta ese “yy tO. Gy SD yet, : Lt JAe ees2777: nTaaACer 7: ee ee, igs LE rtURE SSE Se MESS, SME SKE Ly wv gaipa RRke Lo Zug en 4 —— ro “ ES L0G, * Ye Te 2\FC yah SM LIMOS La Le SO “ee Tin ty le ORS TORRENS, 1G r eo aete ce SE: EEE aBae*Uy 9ee ‘. ‘RI .SSE GEE a£93 ae oes, iaEEE yy Gove Ze, iilOta, WIG? Sse i SE genre . . .ee ead EES REO 7. ELS EG wn wee YE pully Raga] Remy, Deg. .Tie yO OE Beer eee : Ma BS ee ee Se OM EEE EEE: Witte PG a 2 OA EE "g Ee SSE OP EMSA Cd AE PS Sri Sunwe Dees aa 7" osSS ss Se ley.AORL BAGO el IS RR EERO ey, haps. ae A; TEETER Ne Oe Mi Oa ££ ole CT,eyTT OM: sp arei GE OLYt.,iisBor SO so. i, ile

porn re a ne Pp oe MM LEY Le Se CL ee i“ Pn ee ee OA TT ae OOO: LOO : OLDE DSR ppg ‘ pgfan BGA tyWEE YD EE RM LTYo OE OE . Ke ey” % a ms . 5&oe eee. SaTEMy ; ‘gs Snee La Cae aORE OM ee eles ?LE5 hadaees yee “ay3gOaGog: Tey .2 EeSESE . Eg.-nO oe Me ae tad OO * 3ares rah Se nee oseB ng wn :. sty % f(igoo iy nese

"Ra . Ce be “ 9 Oe Lh ie ee a , 4 : Ss > aoe CE eet ae %. tp tly: Bi he, “a :

a . olesas - EE ogeeSage . geMe gk ag ESB. Pee. # BeSie NTP Al ate wer” UF: Sx 4 wy Si = EC aFO YOO agPy . CF” 0EAE gee aa 7a Bg i*an OL ge. ae ple agLy OO. . a, ey FN titles: i% ME OEE Me Ib es io< B 9eara>a LZ aga 6 Ee pn ee 4 dite > wv '% 4 aRar 9-0 fee LG oe oft aan wa Ze 4 nate rm tay as cs “a . few. SS,fipeIN ic aa 8a are ME an Lo eth. %Se ee!i aiH: i OG OUreLeas agoeOye

ieee _Mae teasSU . x“. i aied ge a OR ee "GEE: on Pas aeOB! p aSia “ i a. Z aa. :ih‘aeaeUy: :“s“.“ai.YB : ae silt, Mmpee : dur, hot pe © Lee fig. er” a. D5, woe, * Ge * Arey‘Gor 9.a5"Re Pie. . POINT BE fig LG 109. gitt ee eo : a OS gs BY pace ve The: ae Min :

* ey, See ‘ 5 . cal igi , Hao bi acicel ies hy ‘ nh ae ne oe » a bi .

“atl 4H yr mE ©@6«—¢ ‘4 # he Mom 4 “aed # ~%, Poles, 3 :le rag Yao. _ her *.witty: Y ig e77i”f.““ipggeeeaeas *™ ‘ yn : aiea + °ho >PZarepty «hm

MB .Ge ty,Li ee~”“« 4;¥«A il i“’ .EQ B ge en* ne ae on Pm... ee OB, agp .; °te :ee ;GiHe 7 Boyw ” aepic ee: aad. ae

‘rZ. ..€.ca Was a] . °_ al . 6 —~

Utili© Ed » H.Uy Di E € A.6Y yo break di

tility company executives Edgar H. Dixon and Eugene A. Yates break ground in June 1955 for a power plant to supply power for Memphis, Tennessee. The contract between the °

iti dand thetheAEC d by Presid Eisenh henwhen MMemphis his official utilities was terminated by Fresident Kisenhower oincials

BY € power >» l plant. is t announced their intention to build a‘ muncipal

re hr Wet ee Go 2 re POyy——— er rn Yi Vi iE,i

Sow gh bing ghtdh So Pb oda EG tet ey ELLIOT 4; Yi Lia ., type ELS RAL RT a en es ty hy BEe ase

USLLCLLULULUhrCO el OeeeeeMe DT ye . 7 Op SEE: CGY NG ye Ye Lag is EToe ES rr eRe CLC eeiy epLY OY SE Bs: DIETL ELIT YT TUEe GD ly PeEG Ce ere iiOOO BD Ye ee

WE. OOee ee’ alls yy Yi cee EID: igLEG ee oe eee ee typ pore eSRe OR RO .ORR 2:7 laa . : - GO Cf GRLE EDL LEER Ca RA te RR RS See EAal AL Ti gale po cn ; ; moe Lay La ee ie eee a oe a —— “ jem ee eee een ee UR ES Sl BOT ig i ee Ee pap st GONG GEG SEE LUE LADLG MGT, MMe GED ye ‘CG ORY, te 0 fy oo Gf LMU eS Ss I ES EMAL GD ty Geos

2G OEE - me mo, .

PAPILIO NT TON ODT TY SIS RRTR AVN ASS PIS ROSE PRL OE LLL LLL LOOT

: a yee. _ a #” . | wwe ° e °

ares .. ae: GO ; oa : ” aSn a ee taeatVe heTies nee i a OO haa OE gO ke, re... Eee tae. eeth e eee MEM OO! Cote iit &ie eka OI Oe 0g as bi4 Nps ee, VE Rap OG. ten OO ents sgeten . . 4 “tag, LO CLG Be stem Paes “e Pig. . ee i. ge! 5 x oop OE Me an ay , Ve, A tsmepe Mn, cin a ct Yb aa, Fis. ‘ae pe eeos Oh(hoe hs.TP $OO ye vag os ,thee, oe .a # 3 fe ee . 4aet - es aos WA . Gee ey : RE aeaett“ :sg Sgt so - P ea ae : vn, lesa. ie . om we . . a seve, on hee “PB eoee . . .

a Lease ne aie Wo ee “4 “ oe mie nthe OPO egg , Bp wonton . . , af ig Prom tgp. ~ ee ng fms! nhl, Ses,

,aaaaa,’2oN Rit a ~, me Ayo .’,“aeoD y: “ ~,, ry-. meee

ic, im hep, se ig es _ os aaa jie Pag: iy: sate “ eo he ose Me RY eG * one een Oho wapnee _ % : oe ” i oe “

44 a me « ™: ~™ _& : ; * a wi. ‘ i . h ’ seven come B

ama“ * enemas ° - y — eprver cassaaedll eee

ve . 7) ’ : tet. P f

Congressmen and other official observers watch the formation of a mushroom cloud following

the firing of an atomic artillery shell from the Army’s new 280mm artillery gun. Part 0 Operation Upshot-Knothole test series, the Grable shot was fired on May 25, 1953.

! ‘ he Grable sh fired on May 25, 1953

. sts@¢ 3 " .»crac 3 EW. esfae- a- :-: :. .ae % xoiXSeyWe ¥ Ss Sane " %y -a : on : ~ mae re © a oe BS atm Y we . se wee ak ee we . : oY . sag ue . . Re oS a . es EN x ‘d » BRS oJ Noy P al " ar” on aa Ct hare « BM eh a SSeS RS : Re : Sek

Be-:~arwe: . mol, ‘ aee : - BO “ReBx . Wales. = . RS Ss: ew wo holyeee q Ts eee cSHo "SNR a SeBayeSS g

.~S ¥ RES ee eee | sceRISO NN NY . Pee Se Ru a +°ye - SSRs ree nee . :MMB Dleetyate ot ;ugkaiteet Po, Loe fnTE ms4ISS LY: >Ry3X x¥ES . aeSM NGLO 2g

RR Qa NNN Toe agai wes a( Ne . iFF ¥: : “SARIN RRR RSME MegRe. aca-@ eo a4 2—y;a.me S BSS Ne “Ae “ss Se oy .ESERIES aA oy NSLS Le) ee See SS ai Se Bee 7 SS SRN nk SE es. Do... Se : . Y ea a EE . NM » & SoS SoS BS =

’ BENE NERENN A BNEW ¥ Pe BNR IRS Se RRooWW eeres“arere ee

5 Le Re @STE Ns BW KNASN x. z Peeee : Ww IS\NG keg8RseeesWN, Wr . SEAT ‘BS Neos . Wa

Se og ‘EN oa \ 2* BRAGA Oo ee oo Vi ss. |Be RR ree a. . Ry Gsees oY ‘a Ce FO RR monn E\y a eS eee oSWea WSSie +SS ESSE GES «ER NESS = SL eee ;| oe AS GINS FO OR Mm ON EN \a RS wa BOSON. QQ GS NSE EE OBRS ESAS ee ae [ooeBSS e BAS: gs “ye“< . So IWCS SN MES \ Qe Qe ee NNaN, N wher Ww EW AR Rage res RRR Bas : SSS. SkoNN CX, CN WR ee eeSe ee SIN & 7atboseS le Nae, PN AC . ; we = XK QS Vee” BRS Sa as OE NEE AA NSW GCG Cs eeee WS

RR eS BABES NN SORE EAN ING NS NSW BE BBS SESE NRA

sanesiiiasapeeaiiseniaeasil . SSF x Wes > Ys & WEN es . Wa LENS Ee mena ar

ORR ES | SESrrheCN a SNS NSNY NYS NG ERR RS we NS Sew NS BRR (WWGCE Qa »SRae WSS

EN RQ AWN SSE & SS INXS ARES QCD{KE \\ NS ~ ae RONG aS

S\N ee Ns SNe Se CY KK \\Y wm soe

SNLEE PREFSE AGERE GE 1} WWW ge ESS NY SKN.GEE CC G RNS NSQbi LEEPF aeSe » SEEN,

AN EQ. « \. BS. ARS SL. SRN NS WS AST. : Sat. | SRR S85

Be o . BER SRYBOSS RNS SRR RRR aPk, ENS S:\eo..5F7F3xol# 2ARRAS cae AA ::wo vIn. :SRS :SERRA x; IN Bess AS. SNS: SSR RRR RS.ssrSS SU REN ENS SAN BNog RAGS Ws SS BSS SS AS See es SRL weawele 9,menncesienrenene a\er"OEE SO RORY. oeNYatag SSS . =hen 1I e..x& SSWRe AOE “we Se co SS. oN nr e< g . . & . an at ‘e : oa a SS oS % et. 3 : " Pee ea 5 YRS -ah,y .~.EE ay ll, ee R . ee x TI NEREARAS Se,SR Sa A Vics . Saas tpnJate. SANE . RS age, Ree hey PEERS Re Senge ss MSFN Cee. see ote el \ ‘ we ‘S Ss iy a “ “ aea eee >a »ww 4Be _: Se . ~. ‘ ese" *k BS =“FR oe , «NN / “3

. .9 93.bi]. .5 .

ms / é v » » ~ ~ € al al ¢ > “ € € ~~ 6 ...2....

C airman John McCone describes d the ibes ‘ -3 device to President Eisenhower as it AEC Chai hn McC the SNAP-3 devi

sits on his desk in the Oval Office of the White House, January 16, 1959. The small lightweight device is a radioisotope-fueled thermoelectric generator for use in space missions.

. a) 2 7? ay @ } ~ © . ~ a)

€ féicraf€ AEC « ¢€ » rs .C ~ « d Lt. Colonel G M. And ff

° v » € € € ec mae % ~ cs t d *t . f. ircraf Chai McC k assistant A { didiaircrait reactors WicUlone Olonel jacColonel rmstrong, deputy ". 2)AEC), e airman © a) ¢. > * oY ~ oY a] »

Left toight: ri t: resident sennower ajor enera ona dG. eirn, assistan rector ror President Eisenh Major | Donal Kei

are]h,. ACBM 63, June 18, 1957, AEC. of a Deterrent Air Weapon System, Report 6. Robert A. Divine, Blowing on the Wind: OR-P-29 (San Diego: Convair, 1955); The Nuclear Test Ban Debate, 1954- Bernard Brodie. The Atomic Bomb and 1960 (New York: Oxford University American Security (New Haven: Yale InPress, 1978), p. 140 (hereafter cited Di- stitute of International Relations, 1945);

vine, Blowing on the Wind). William Kaufmann, ed., Military Policy

7. Press Release, Remarks of Representa- and National Security (Princeton: Princetive Sterling Cole (R., New York) in the ton University Press, 1956); Basil Liddell House of Representatives, on July 1, Hart, Defense of the West (New York: Wil-

1957, AEC. liam Morrow, 1950); Robert E. Osgood,

8. President’s News Conference of June 5, Limited War: The Challenge to American 1957, Public Papers of the Presidents of Strategy (Chicago: University of Chicago the United States, 1957: Dwight D. Eisen- Press, 1957); Fred Kaplan, The Wizards hower (Washington: Government Printing of Armageddon (New York: Simon and

Office, 1958), p. 429 (hereafter cited Schuster, 1983)(hereafter cited Kaplan, Public Papers, 1957, Eisenhower); Di- The Wizards of Armageddon). vine, Blowing on the Wind, pp. 140-41; 15. Henry Kissinger, Nuclear Weapons and Cousins to Eisenhower, June 7, 1957; Foreign Policy (New York: Harper & Strauss to Eisenhower, June 18, 1957; Brothers, 1957); Lawrence Freedman, Eisenhower to Cousins, June 21, 1957, The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy (New all in DDE; “Scientists and the Fall-out York: St. Martin’s Press, 1983), pp. 102— Seare,” U.S. News and World Report, 19 (hereafter cited Freedman, The Evo-

June 21, 1957, p. 52. lution of Nuclear Strategy).

9. Linus Pauling, No More War! (New 16. Congressional Record, 85 Cong., | sess., York: Dodd, Mead, 1958), pp. 159-60 June 23, 1957, pp. 10569-—573. (hereafter cited Pauling, No More 17. Ibid.; Harold P. Green and Alan RosenWar!); Robert Gilpin, American Scien- thal, Government of the Atom: The Inte-

NOTES TO PAGES 455-61

gration of Powers (New York: Atherton 26. Public Papers, 1957, Eisenhower, pp. Press, 1963), pp. 205-6; Chet Holifield, 468—80; Western Statement in the Dis“Congressional Hearings on Radioactive armament Subcommittee on Nuclear Test Fall-out,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Suspension, July 2, 1957, Documents on

14 (Jan. 1958): 52-54. Disarmament, 1945-1959, Vol. TI,

18. Analysis of Voting in 10th General As- 1957-1959 (Department of State Publisembly Consideration of Atomic Radia- cation 7008), pp. 802—3 (hereafter cited tion, AEC 226/65, Dec. 5, 1955; United Documents on Disarmament). Nations Scientific Committee on Radia- 27. Stassen to Dulles, June 20, 1957, DDE; tion, AEC 226/68, Jan. 11, 1956; AEC Dulles, Memorandum of Conversation 226/76, Feb. 24, 1956; AEC 226/83, with British Ambassador Sir Harold CacApril 13, 1956; AEC 226/85, May 24, cia, June 23, 1957, DOS. 1956; CM 1181, Feb. 28, 1956; Hall to 28. Bernhard G. Bechhoefer, Postwar Nego-

Fields, April 2, 1956, all in AEC; tiations for Arms Control (Washington: Shields Warren, Official Report of the Brookings Institution, 1961), pp. 407-8 United States Delegation to the U.N. Sei- (hereafter cited Bechhoefer, Postwar Neentific Committee on the Effects of gotiations for Arms Control); Dulles, Tele-

Atomic Radiation, n.d., AEC. phone Call to Allen Dulles, July 8, 1957, 644. 19. Spiegel, Discussion of the U.S. Contri- DDE; J. G. Mein, Memorandum of Con-

bution to the Work of the UN Scientific versation, July 12, 1957, DOS. Committee, Sept. 25, 1957, DOS. See 29. Dulles, Memorandum of Conversation

also Divine, Blowing on the Wind, with the President, July 22, 1957;

pp. 63-65. Strauss to Eisenhower, July 23, 1957,

20. AEC Press Release 1201, Statement on both in DDE.

Radioactive Fallout Submitted to the 30. Bechhoefer, Postwar Negotiations for Arms

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission by the Control, pp. 406-7; Dulles to Herter,

Advisory Committee on Biology and July 30, 31, 1957, DDE; Smith to

Medicine, Oct. 19, 1957; ACBM 64, Strauss, Aug. 12, 1957, DOS; Western Sept. 13-14, 1957, both in AEC; Farley Working Paper Submitted to the Disarto Stassen, Wilcox, and Berding, Fallout mament Subcommittee: Systems of Inreport by Advisory Committee on Biology spection to Safeguard Against the Posand Medicine, Oct. 4, 1957 (not sent), sibility of Surprise Attack, Aug. 2, 1957, DOS; Helen C. Allison, “Strontium- and Statement by Secretary of State Dul90—Some Notes on Present and Future les to the Disarmament Subcommittee, Levels,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Aug. 2, 1957, Documents on Disarma-

14 (Jan. 1958): 62. ment, pp. 837-45; Dulles to Herter for

21. AEC Press Release 1201, Statement on Eisenhower, July 31, 1957, DDE. Radioactive Fallout Submitted to the 31. Dulles, Memorandum of Conversation U.S. Atomic Energy Commission by the with the President, Aug. 3, 1957, DDE; Advisory Committee on Biology and Strauss to File, Aug. 8, 1957, LLS. Medicine, Oct. 19, 1957, AEC. 32. Cutler, Morning Conference on Aug. 9, 22. John S. D. Eisenhower, Memorandum of 1957, DOS. Conference with the President, Aug. 9, 33. Cutler, Afternoon Conference on Aug. 9, 1957; Dulles, Addendum to Memoran- 1957, DOS; Smith Telephone Call to the

dum of Conversation with the President, Secretary in Utica (en route to WaterAug. 3, 1957, both in DDE; AEC-MLC town, NY), Aug. 9, 1957, DDE.

112, June 27, 1957, AEC. 34. Smith to Strauss, Aug. 15, 1957, LLS.

23. John S. D. Eisenhower, Memorandum of 35. Statement by the President After AuthoConference with the President, Aug. 9, rizing Inclusion of Nuclear Test Suspen-

1957, DDE; Strauss to File, Aug. 9, sion Among Disarmament Proposals,

1957, LLS. Aug. 21, 1957, Public Papers, 1957, Ei-

24. Strauss to Quarles, Sept. 12, 1957, AEC. senhower, p. 627; Dulles, Memorandum 25. Strauss to Eisenhower, Nov. 23, 1957, of Conversation with the President, Aug. Jan. 29, June 12, 1958, all in AEC; De- 21, 1957, DDE.

partment of Energy, “Announced United 36. Bechhoefer, Postwar Negotiations for Arms

States Nuclear Tests, July 1945 Through Control, pp. 408—13; Smith, Telephone

December 1982,” Jan. 1983, NVO-209 Conversation with Stassen, Aug. 28,

(Rev. 3), pp. 8-9. 1957; Spiers, Telephone Conversation

NOTES TO PAGES 461-67

with Stassen, Aug. 28, 1957, both in dent for Science and Technology (CamDOS; Public Papers, 1957, Eisenhower, bridge: MIT Press, 1977), pp. 2-30 pp. 635-36; Dulles, Telephone Call (hereafter cited Killian, Sputnik, Scien-

from Strauss, Aug. 30, 1957, DDE. tists, and Eisenhower); Jacobson and 37. Western Working Paper Submitted to the Stein, Diplomats, Scientists, and Politi-

Disarmament Subcommittee: Proposals clans, pp. 32-33. Imtial members. of for Partial Measures of Disarmament, the science advisory committee were Aug. 29, 1957, Documents on Disarma- Robert F. Bacher, Wilham O. Baker, ment, pp. 868-74; Divine, Blowing on Lloyd V. Berkner, Hans A. Bethe,

the Wind, pp. 155-56. Detlev W. Bronk, James H. Doolittle,

38. Divine, Blowing on the Wind, p. 159; James B. Fisk, Caryl P. Haskins, Bechhoefer, Postwar Negotiations for James R. Killian, George B. KistiaArms Control, pp. 433—34; Harold K. Ja- kowsky, Edwin H. Land, Emanuel R.

cobson and Eric Stein, Diplomats, Scien- Piore, Edward M. Purcell, Isidor I. tists, and Politicians: The United States Rabi, H. P. Robertson, Jerome B. and the Nuclear Test Ban Negotiations Wiesner, Herbert F. York, and Jerrold R.

(Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Zacharias.

Press, 1966), p. 17 (hereafter cited Ja- 46. Seven members of the President’s Sci-

cobson and Stein, Diplomats, Scientists, ence Advisory Committee had previously 645 and Politicians); New York Times, Oct. served on the Gaither committee or one of

14, 1957. its subcommittees. They were: Lloyd V.

39. Jacobson and Stein, Diplomats, Scien- Berkner, James H. Doolittle, James B. tists, and Politicians, pp. 28-29; Bech- Fisk, James R. Killian, L. 1. Rabi, Jehoefer, Postwar Negotiations for Arms rome B. Wiesner, and Herbert F. York. Control, pp. 413—14; Memorandum by 47. Morton H. Halperin, “The Gaither Com-

the Soviet Government on Partial Mea- mittee and the Policy Process,” World sures in the Field of Disarmament, Sept. Politics 13° (Oct. 1960—July 1961): 20, 1957, Documents on Disarmament, 360-84 (hereafter cited Halperin, “The

pp. 874-84. Gaither Committee”).

40. Dulles, Speech delivered to the United — 48. Joint Committee on Defense Production,

Nations 680th Plenary Meeting, Official Deterrence and Survival in the Nuclear Records of the General Assembly, Twelfth Age (The “Gaither Report” of 1957), Joint

Session: Plenary Meetings (New York: Committee Print (Washington: GovernUnited Nations, 1957), pp. 18-21; Dul- ment Printing Office, 1976); Halperin, les to Eisenhower, Sept. 16, 1957; Eisen- “The Gaither Committee,” pp. 361-69; hower to Dulles, Sept. 17, 1957; Dulles to Freedman, The Evolution of Nuclear Macmillan, Sept. 19, 1957, all in DDE. Strategy, pp. 100—63; Kaplan, The Wi41. Stassen to Dulles, Informal Memoran- zards of Armageddon, pp. 129-32.

dum, Sept. 23, 1957, DDE. 49. Dulles, Memorandum of Conversation

42. Dulles to Stassen, Sept. 27, 1957, DDE. with the President, Dec. 26, 1957, DDE:

43. Strauss to Dulles, Sept. 28, 1957; Fisenhower, Waging Peace, 1956-1961 Quarles to Dulles, Sept. 30, 1957; Twin- (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965), pp.

ing to Dulles, Sept. 30, 1957; Dulles, 219-23 (hereafter cited Eisenhower, Telephone Call to Eisenhower, Sept. 27, Waging Peace). 1957; Dulles to Eisenhower, Oct. 1, 90. Dulles to Eisenhower, Sept. 29, 1957, 1957; Dulles, Memorandum of Conver- DDE; Strauss to File, Oct. 9, 1957, LLS. sation with Vice-President Nixon, Sept. 51. Dulles, Memorandum of Conversation at

30, 1957, all in DDE. the British Embassy, Oct. 22, 1957,

44. Bechhoefer, Postwar Negotiations for DDE.

Arms Control, pp. 413-39; Jacobson and o2. Public Papers, 1957, Eisenhower, Stein, Diplomats, Scientists, and Politi- pp. 768—72; Clinton P. Anderson, Out-

clans, pp. 21-24. sider in the Senate: Senator Clinton An-

45. Public Papers, 1957, Etsenhower, derson’s Memoirs (New York: World Pubpp. 789-99; Gilpin, American Scientists lishing, 1970), p. 168 (hereafter cited and Nuclear Weapons Policy, pp. 176—- Anderson, Outsider in the Senate); Har77; James R. Killian, Jr., Sputnik, Sci- old L. Nieburg, Nuclear Secrecy and Forentists, and Eisenhower: A Memoir of eign Policy (Washington: Public Affairs the First Special Assistant to the Presi- Press, 1964), pp. 137-38.

NOTES TO PAGES 467-74

o3. Anderson, Outsider in the Senate, p. 168; Control of Armaments, Jan. 9, 1958; CM

Dulles, Telephone Call from Smith, Oct. 1324, Jan. 8, 1958, both in AEC. Nu26, 1957; Dulles, Telephone Call from merous documents in the Dulles papers Strauss, Oct. 26, 1957, both in DDE. concerning Stassen’s last months in the 04. Dulles, Telephone Call to Stevenson Administration remained closed to re-

in Chicago, Oct. 28, 1957; Dulles, search at the Eisenhower Presidential

Memorandum of Conversation with Gov- Library. ernor Stevenson, Secretary’s Residence, 64. Eisenhower to Bulganin, Jan. 13, 1958,

Oct. 30, 1957, both in DDE. Public Papers of the Presidents of the

oo. Dulles, Telephone Call to Strauss, United States, 1958: Dwight D. EisenNov. 26, 1957; Dulles, Memorandum of hower (Washington: Government Printing Conversation with Governor Stevenson, Office, 1959), pp. 75-84 (hereafter cited Nov. 26, 1957, both in DDE. Correspon- Public Papers, 1958, Eisenhower). dence relating to this episode can be 65. See Chap. 11, Defining the Safeguard

found in Walter Johnson, Carol Evans, Problem and Geneva = Safeguard and C. Eric Sears, eds., The Papers of Conference.

Adlai E. Stevenson, Vol. 7, Continuing 66. Killian, Sputnik, Scientists, and EisenEducation and the Unfinished Business of hower, pp. 150-152.

646 American Society, 1957-1961 (Boston: 67. Commission representatives were Brig. Little, Brown, 1977), pp. 96-137. Gen. Alfred Starbird, Carson Mark, Har96. Statement by the Indian Prime Minister old Brown, and Roderick Spence. De{[Nehru] on Nuclear Test Explosions, partment of Defense representatives were Nov. 28, 1957, and Letter From the So- General Herbert Loper, Maj. Gen. Richviet Premier [Bulganin] to President E1i- ard C. Coiner, Colonel Lester Woodward, senhower, Dec. 10, 1957, Documents on and Doyle Northrup. The CIA represen-

Disarmament, pp. 917-26. tative was Herbert Scoville, Jr. Repre-

o7. Eisenhower, Waging Peace, p. 231. Di- sentatives from the Science Advisory vine, Blowing on the Wind, pp. 172-73, Committee were Hans Bethe (chairman) suggests that Sputnik caused only a tem- and Herbert York. Representing the mis-

porary setback on a test ban. sile committee of PSAC were George Kis-

58. Communiqué by the North Atlantic tiakowsky, J. W. McRea, Herbert York, Council [Extract], Dec. 19, 1957, Docu- L. Hyland, and Robert F. Bacher. Desments on Disarmament, pp. 928-31; E1- ignation of Members of Various Working

senhower, Waging Peace, p. 232. Groups—NSC Meeting on Jan. 6, 1958,

59. Eisenhower, Memorandum on letter of AEC 226/131, Jan. 23, 1958, AEC; KilPrime Minister Macmillan (dated Janu- lian, Sputnik, Scientists, and Eisenhower,

ary 2, 1958), Jan. 3, 1958, DDE; Public pp. 154-55. Papers, 1957, Eisenhower, pp. 832-34. 68. Jacobson and Stein, Diplomats, Scien60. Dulles, Memorandum of Conversation, tists, and Politicians, p. 34; Pauling to Oct. 8, 1957; Dulles, Memorandum of Eisenhower, Feb. 19, 1958, LLS. Conversation with the President, Oct. 18, 69. Report of U.S. Delegation to the Fourth 1957; Dulles, Memorandum of Conver- Session of the UN Scientific Committee sation with Governor Stassen, Secretary’s on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, AEC

Residence, Oct. 20, 1957; Stassen to 226/139, April 30, 1958, AEC. Dulles, Oct. 21, 1957; Dulles, Memoran- 70. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 14 (Jan.

dum of Conversation with Governor Stas- 1958): 9-61; Walter R. Eckelmann, sen, Oct. 31, 1957; Dulles, Telephone J. Laurence Kulp, and Arthur R. Schulert,

Call to Nixon, Dec. 26, 1957, all in “Strontium-90 in Man, Il,” Science,

DDE. Feb. 7, 1958, pp. 266-74; Pauling, No

61. National Security Council, Summary of More War!, p. 102; CM 1280, May 1,

Discussion (hereafter cited SNSC), Meet- 1957, AEC. See also Divine, Blowing on

ing 350, Jan. 6, 1958, DDE. the Wind, pp. 184-97.

62. Killian, Sputnik, Scientists, and Eisen- 71. Humphrey to Eisenhower, Nov. 4, 1957; hower, p. 154; SNSC 350, Jan. 6, 1958, Eisenhower to Humphrey, Nov. 8, 1957,

DDE. both in DDE; Jacobson and Stein, Diplo-

63. James S. Lay, Jr., Memorandum for the mats, Scientists, and Politicians, p. 35.

National Security Council: U.S. Policy on = 72. Senate Subcommittee of the Commit-

NOTES TO PAGES 474-83

tee on Foreign Relations, Hearings on 1958, both in AEC; Morse to Strauss, Control and Reduction of Armaments, May 2, 1958, LLS. Feb. 28—-April 17, 1958 (Washington: 83. Decree of the Supreme Soviet Concerning

Government Printing Office, 1958), the Discontinuance of Soviet Atomic and pp. 1336-64 (hereafter cited Hearings Hydrogen Weapons Tests, March 31, on Control and Reduction of Armaments). 1958, Documents on Disarmament, pp. 73. Ibid., pp. 1365-615; Jacobson and 978-80; Hearings on Control and ReducStein, Diplomats, Scientists, and Politi- tion of Armaments, p. 1545; Jacobson

clans, pp. 43-44. and Stein, Diplomats, Scientists, and Pol-

74. AEC Press Release, Background Infor- iticians, p. 495.

mation on the Deep Underground Shot 84. Dulles, Memorandum of Conversation

(Rainier) at the Nevada Test Site, March with the President, March 24, 1954; 6, 1958; AEC Press Release A-53, Libby Goodpaster, Memorandum of Conference to Humphrey, March 12, 1958; JCAE, with the President, March 24, 1958, both

Transcript. of Hearings on Erroneous in DDE.

Statement in Press Release of March 6, 85. SNSC 361, April 4, 1958, DDE. 1958, Issued by AEC, Concerning Rai- 86. Khrushchev to Eisenhower, April 4 and nier Underground Atomic Detonation, 8, 1958, and Eisenhower to Khrushchev,

March 15, 1958, all in AEC; Hearings on April 8, 1958, Documents on Disarma- 647

Control and Reduction of Armaments, pp. ment, pp. 980-85; Secretary Dulles’s 1584-98: Gilpin, American Scientists News Conference of April 1, 1958, AEC; and Nuclear Weapons Policy, p. 182. Secretary’s Staff Meeting, April | and 8, 75. Edward Teller and Albert Latter, “The 1958, both in DOS. Compelling Need for Nuclear Tests,” 87. The President’s News Conference of April

Life, Feb. 10, 1958, pp. 65-72; Teller 9, 1958, Public Papers, 1958, Eisenand Latter, Our Nuclear Future ... hower, pp. 294—304; Dulles, Telephone Facts, Dangers and Opportunities (New Call to Eisenhower, April 8, 1958; York: Criterion Books, 1958); Hearings Dulles, Telephone Call from Strauss, on Control and Reduction of Armaments, April 9, 1958, both in DDE.

pp. 1453-60. 88. Killian, Sputnik, Scientists, and Eisen-

76. Hearings on Control and Reduction of Ar- hower, pp. 156—57; Jacobson and Stein,

maments, pp. 1526-43. Diplomats, Scientists, and Politicians,

77. Comments on H.R.8269—A Bill to Pro- p- 49; Divine, Blowing on the Wind,

hibit Testing of Nuclear Devices, AEC p. 209.

226/134, March 18, 1958; AEC 226/ 89. Foster, Memorandum to the Secretary, 136, April 2, 1958; AEC 226/138, April Review of Existing Disarmament Policy, 21, 1958; Graham to McCool, March 25, April 10, 1958, AEC. 1958; Graham to Commissioners, April 90. President’s Special Cabinet Committee

23, 1958; Graham to Durham, May 23, on Summit Preparations—Report of 1958; J. H. Morse, Jr., to Graham, Working Group on Disarmament, AEC March 3, 1958; Morse to Floberg, March 226/137, April 17, 1958, AEC. 3, 1958; Morse to Libby, March 10, 91. Strauss to File, April 16, 1958, LLS.

1958, all in AEC. 92. Goodpaster, Memorandum of Conference

78. Goodpaster, Memorandum of Conference with the President, April 17, 1958, DDE;

with the President, Jan. 22, 1958, DDE. Khrushchev to Eisenhower, April 22, 79. Test Limitations, AEC 226/132, Feb. 24, 1958, Documents on Disarmament, pp.

1958; CM 1337, Feb. 26, 1958, both in 996-1004.

AEC. 93. Memorandum of Conversation, Meeting

80. CM 1340, March 7, 1958; Further Infor- with Disarmament Advisers, April 26, mation Relative to Underground Testing, 1958, DDE. AEC 987/1, March 14, 1958, both in 94. Eisenhower to Khrushchev, April 28,

AEC. 1958, Documents on Disarmament, pp.

81. Report of NSC Ad Hoc Working Group on 1006-7.

the Technical Feasibility of a Cessation of 95. Strauss to Eisenhower, Jan. 29, 1958;

Nuclear Testing, March 28, 1958, AEC. CM 1351, April 4, 1958; CM 1352, 82. Taylor to the Secretary of Defense, March April 7, 1958, all in AEC; Strauss to 13, 1958; Quarles to Bethe, March 21, File, April 3 and 7, 1958, both in LLS.

NOTES TO PAGES 483-97

96. Goodpaster, Memorandum of Conference on June 25, 1958. Maurice Stans, direcwith the President, May 1, 1958, DDE; tor, Bureau of the Budget, to Eisenhower,

CM 1359, April 21, 1958, AEC. July 1, 1958, DDE; Eisenhower's state-

97. Letter to the President Regarding Test ment is in Public Papers of the Presidents

Activity, AEC 987/8, Sept. 2, 1958, of the United States, 1958: Dwight D.

AEC. Eisenhower (Washington: Government

98. Morse Salisbury to Starbird, Action on Printing Office, 1959), pp. 582-83; NuUnited Press coverage of protestor groups cleonics 16 (July 1958): 17-19. The auat the Nevada Test Site, Aug. 7, 1957, thorization act was P.L.85—590, 72 Stat.

AEC; Divine, Blowing on the Wind, 490. pp. 160, 165-69, 178-81. 7. Holifield, President’s Criticism of Atomic

99. CM 1334, Feb. 12, 1958, AEC: Earle Authorization Bill) Analyzed and = AnReynolds, The Forbidden Voyage (New swered, Aug. 6, 1958, JCAE; McCone to

York: David McKay, 1961). File, Aug. 5, 1958, AEC.

100. CM 1369, May 6, 1958; CM 1371, May 8. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, 9, 1958; CM 1372, May 9, 1958; Meet- Hearings on the Proposed EURATOM ing between Chairman Strauss and Mem- Agreements and Legislation to Carry Out bers of National Committee for Non- the Proposed Cooperative Program, July

648 Violent Action Against Nuclear Tests, 22—30, 1958 (Washington: Government

May 13, 1958, all in AEC; Lewis L. Printing Office, 1958). For Dillon’s testiStrauss, Men and Decisions (Garden City, mony, see pp. 22-82; for Floberg’s NY: Doubleday, 1962), p. 413; Divine, testimony, pp. 88-128, 135-49, 182-

Blowing on the Wind, p. 214. 223. The hearings also contain copies of

101. GAC 58, May 5, 7, 1958; Quarles to Ei- all documents in the EURATOM packsenhower, May 9, 1958; Loper to Strauss, age. The authorization bill was enacted

May 8, 1958, all in AEC. on Aug. 28, 1958, as the EURATOM

102. GAC 58, May 5, 7, 1958, AEC. Cooperation Act of 1958, P.L.85-846.

103. Goodpaster, Memorandum of Conference The EURATOM agreement was approved

with the President, May 14, 1958, DDE; by Senate Concurrent Resolution 116,

Khrushchev to Eisenhower, May 9, Aug. 23, 1958.

1958, Documents on Disarmament, pp. 9. AEC Press Release A-165, June 30,

1036-41. 1958; AEC Press Release A-144, June

104. Dulles, Memorandum of Conversation 16, 1958, both in AEC; Nucleonics 16

with Strauss, May 16, 1958, DDE. (July 1958): 21. 105. Eisenhower to Khrushchev, May 24, 10. McCone to File, undated but ca. Sept. 1958; Khrushchev to Eisenhower, May 14, 1958, AEC. 30, 1958; Eisenhower to Khrushchev, ]1. McCone probably got these ideas from June 10, 1958, all in Documents on Dis- Rickover, who later presented them at

armament, pp. 1043-44, 1050-51, a Joint Committee hearing. Joint Com-

1051-52. mittee on Atomic Energy, Hearings on

106. CM 1377, May 28, 1958, AEC. AEC Authorizing Legislation, Fiscal Year

1960, Feb. 7—May 8, 1959 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1959),

pp. 267-77 (hereafter cited Authoriza-

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN tion Hearings, 1960).

12. Durham to Fields, June 18, 1958, in 1. Strauss to Eisenhower, March 31, 1958, AEC 496/45, June 30, 1958, AEC; Joint

LLS. Committee on Atomic Energy, Proposed

2. Strauss to File, Dec. 15, 1954, LLS. Expanded Civilian Nuclear Power Pro-

3. Nucleonics 16 (July 1958): 20. gram, Joint Committee Print, Aug. 1958 4. Anderson, “A Pattern for Nuclear (Washington: Government Printing OfPower,” Joint Committee Press Release fice, 1958). 167, June 19, 1958, AEC; Zehring to 13. Durham to McCone, Aug. 21, 1958,

Strauss, June 13, 1958, LLS. transmitting JCAE Press Release 180,

Do. McCone to File, July 16, 1958, AEC. Aug. 25, 1958, in JCAE Press Release 6. Congressional Record, 85 Cong., 2 sess., and Questionnaire on Proposed Expp. 12146, 12264. Identical _ bills, panded Civilian Nuclear Power Program, H.R.13121 and S.4051, were introduced AEC 152/97, Aug. 29, 1958, AEC.

NOTES TO PAGES 497-507

14. McCone to Rickover, Sept. 14, 18, 1958; dum of Conference with the President, CM 14038, Sept. 17, 1958, all in AEC. Feb. 11, 1959, DDE. 15. Foster to McCone, Sept. 4, 1958; Ad Hoc —-25. 202 Hearings, 1959, pp. 99-104; AuAdvisory Committee on Reactor Policies thorization Hearings, 1960, pp. 113-15; and Programs, AEC 1007, Oct. 7, 1958; Nucleonics 17 (March 1959): 23. AEC Press Release A-265, Oct. 8, 1958, 26. Authorization Hearings, 1960, pp. 129—-

all in AEC. 34, 142-44.

16. Tammaro to Foster, Oct. 14, 1958; Foster = 27. Ibid., pp. 658-59. to the Commissioners, Oct. 21, 1958; 28. General Manager, The Chugach Program,

AEC Press Release A-287, Oct. 29, AEC 777/81, Feb. 16, 1959; General 1958, all in AEC; Nucleonics 16 (Nov. Manager, The Hallam Reactor Project,

1958): 22. AEC 777/82, Feb. 16, 1959; Director of

17. Section 101(d) 13, P.L.85—590; AEC Reactor Development, Consideration of Press Release A-238, Sept. 15, 1958, the Hallam Project, AEC 777/84, March

AEC. 5, 1959; Correspondence Regarding the

18. Director of Reactor Development, Fuel Hallam, Nebraska, Project, AEC 777/ Cycle Development Program, AEC 152/ 83, March 2, 1959; CM 1472, Feb. 16, 96, Aug. 15, 1958; AEC Press Release 1959, all in AEC; Nucleonics 17 (March

A-269, Oct. 15, 1958; AEC Press Re- 1959): 17-18; Authorization Hearings, 649

lease A-322, Dec. 5, 1958; AEC Press 1960, pp. 181-87, 301; AEC Press ReRelease A-329, Dec. 11, 1958, all in lease B-103, July 2, 1959, AEC. AEC; Nucleonics 17 (Jan. 1959): 24. 29. Sect. 110, P.L.85-—590, imposed the 19. The committee’s files in AEC contain ver- ninety-day requirement. See Chap. 18, batim transcripts of the twelve meetings note 6. Authorization Hearings, 1960, held from Oct. 3, 1958, to Jan. 2, 1959, pp. 329-30. along with extensive correspondence. 30. Authorization Hearings, 1960, pp. 1-95,

The Joint Committee published the re- 156-57, 335-41, 375-76, 402-15, plies to the survey as a committee print 483-84, 636-48; AEC Press Release Bin November 1958. The originals of the 145, Aug. 27, 1959, AEC. replies are in Group 1, Box 44, JCAE. = 31. Director of Reactor Development, Fluid On Commission reactions, see CM 1429, Fuel Reactors Program, AEC 152/128,

Nov. 18, 1958, AEC. May 28, 1959; CM 1533, Aug. 4, 1959;

20. Civilian Nuclear Power, Report by Ad AEC Report on Four Power Reactors, Hoe Advisory Committee on Reactor AEC 152/125, April 28, 1959; TransmitPolicies and Programs, Jan. 2, 1959, tal of Reactor Concept Report, AEC 152/ AEC. The complete report also appeared 126, April 29, 1959; McCool to File, in Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, May 5, 1959, all in AEC; Authorization Hearings on Development, Growth, and Hearings, 1960, pp. 544-616. State of the Atomic Energy Industry, Feb. 32. Authorization Hearings, 1960, pp. 617-—

17-26, 1959 (Washington: Government 77; Nucleonics 17 (July 1959): 17. Printing Office, 1959), pp. 510-40 33. Percival F. Brundage to Strauss, Jan. 25,

(hereafter cited 202 Hearings, 1959); 1956, in AEC 653/17, Jan. 30, 1956; Nucleonics 17 (Feb. 1959): 19-20. CM 1170, Feb. 2, 1956; Strauss to Row-

21. Minutes, Informal Commission Meeting, land Hughes, Feb. 10, 1956; Tammaro to Dec. 29, 1958; Stans to McCone, Nov. Cook, March 16, 1956, all in AEC. 26, 1958, in AEC 998/16, Dec. 1, 1958; 34. Clarence G. Morse, Maritime AdminisFY 1960 Budget Estimates, AEC 998/ trator, to Warren G. Magnuson, June 27, 17, Dec. 1, 1958, all in AEC; Nucleonics 1956, in AEC 653/23, July 16, 1956; Ei-

17 (Jan. 1959): 23. senhower to Strauss, July 30, 1956, in

22. The plan was submitted to the Commis- AEC 653/24, Aug. 2, 1956; Director of sion in four successive versions, all enti- Reactor Development, B & W Proposal tled Proposed Reactor Development Pro- for Nuclear Powered Merchant Ship, gram: AEC 152/106, Jan. 9, 1959; AEC AEC 653/25, Sept. 21, 1956; AEC Press 152/107, Jan. 12, 1959; AEC 152/109, Release 1024, April 10, 1957; Selec-

Jan. 26, 1959; and AEC 152/110, Jan. tion of Construction Contractor for

27, 1959, all in AEC. Nuclear Powered Merchant Ship, AEC

23. 202 Hearings, 1959, pp. 38-48. 653/37, Nov. 13, 1957; AEC Press Re24. Ibid., pp. 77-79; Goodpaster, Memoran- lease 1221, Nov. 19, 1957; AEC Press

NOTES TO PAGES 507-19

Release B-56, April 9, 1959, all in gram, Part IV, Plans for Development as

AEC. of February 1960 (Washington: Govern-

35. AEC Press Release 967, Jan. 25, 1957: ment Printing Office, 1960); copies are in H. D. Anamosa to Hollingsworth, Brief- AEC. ing on N. S. Savannah, July 13, 1959; R. V. Willit to File, Briefing Outlines, July 15, 1959; McCone to Luedecke,

July 22, 1959, all in AEC. 7

36. McCone to Luedecke, July 30, Aug. 7, CHAPTER NINETEEN 1959; Dwight A. Ink to File, July 27, I. Ernest Braun and Stuart MacDonald,

1959, all in AEC. Revolution in Miniature (New York: Cam-

37. Nucleonics 17 (Oct. 1959): 18; Luedecke bridge University Press, 1978), pp. 54— to McCone, Aug. 10, 1959; Graham to 72; Edward W. Constant II, The Origins

Anderson, Sept. 30, 1959, with Sum- of the Turbojet Revolution (Baltimore: mary Notes of Discussion with Admiral Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980).

Rickover, Aug. 19, 1959, in AEC 653/ 2. Oral history interview with Thomas

55, Oct. 12, 1959, all in AEC. Gates, Columbia University Oral History 38. McCone to Luedecke, May 11, 1959; collection, as quoted in George B. Kistia-

650 Luedecke to McCone, June 8, 1959, both kowsky, A Scientist at the White House

in AEC. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,

39. Civilian Nuclear Power Program: Part 1976), p. xxix (hereafter cited KistiaI—Summary, Current Status of Reactor kowsky, A Scientist at the White House). Concepts; Part Il—Economic Potential 3. Price to Eisenhower, Oct. 24, 1957: CM

and Development Program; Part I]I1— 1313, Nov. 6, 1957; Joint Committee Technical Status (a series of mini re- Press Release 183, Dec. 1, 1958, all in ports); Notes on Nuclear Power Program, AEC; AEC, Twenty-fifth Semiannual Re-

Oct. 30, 1959, all in AEC. port (Washington: Government Printing

40. Minutes, Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on Office, 1959), pp. 191-92. Reactor Policies and Programs, Oct. 27, 4. Minutes, GAC Reactor Subcommittee on Nov. 7, 13—14, 27-28, Dec. 5, 1959; ANP Projects, Dee. 18—19, 1958, AEC. Minutes, Informal Commission Meeting, Expenditure figures appear in Joint ComDec. 4, 1959; McCool to Pittman, Dec. mittee Press Release 235, July 21, 1959,

8, 1959; Pittman to McCone, Dec. 9, AEC.

1959; Director of Reactor Development, 9. McCone and Quarles to Eisenhower, Program Recommendations for Develop- Jan. 2, 1959; R. X. Donovan to the Comment of Large Central Station Nuclear missioners and General Manager, Jan. 26,

Power Plants, AEC 152/130, Dec. 17, 27, 1959, all in AEC.

1959; Tammaro to McCone, Dec. 17, 6. McCone to the Commissioners, June 18, 1959, with attachment, Ad Hoc Advisory 22, 1959; Joint Committee, Transcript of Committee on Reactor Policies and Pro- Hearing, Jan. 26—27, 1959, all in AEC. grams to McCone, Dec. 14, 1959, all 7. Director of Reactor Development, ANP in AEC; Nucleonics 17 (Dec. 1959): Manned Aircraft Program Planning, AEC

17-19. 17/175, Sept. 18, 1959, and AEC 17/

41. Authorization Hearings, 1960, pp. 656— 183, Dee. 11, 1959; CM 1575, Dec. 19,

97; Nucleonics 17 (May 1959): 28-29. 1959; Floberg to McCone, Dec. 21,

42. AEC 152/130, Dec. 17, 1959, AEC. See 1959; McCone to Luedecke, June 30,

Chap. 18, note 40. 1960, all in AEC; Kistiakowsky, A Sci-

43. Successive drafts of the long-range plan entist at the White House, pp. 182, 204; appeared in AEC 152/133, Jan. 16, Goodpaster, Memorandum of Conference 1960; AEC 152/134, Jan. 25, 1960: with the President, June 23, 1959, DDE. AEC 152/135, Feb. 1, 1960; and AEC 8. AEC, Annual Report to the Congress, 152/136, Feb. 3, 1960, all in AEC. See 1961 (Washington: Government Printing also McCool to Pittman, Jan. 15, 1960; Office, 1962), pp. 155-56; AEC Press CM 1584, Jan. 27, 1960; CM 1587, Feb. Release D-73, March 30, 1961, AEC. 2, 1960; CM 1590, Feb. 4, 1960; AEC 9. Director of Military Application, Special Press Release C-20, Feb. 16, 1960, all Reactor Test Site, AEC 141/32, April 2,

in AEC. The long-range plan was pub- 1956; CM 1190, April 4, 1956; Brief lished as Civilian Nuclear Power Pro- History and Chronology of the Nuclear

NOTES TO PAGES 519-27

Rocket Program, Dec. 12, 1962; Pro- Shield, 1946-1952, Vol. II of A History gress on the ANP Program, AEC 17/159, of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Aug. 25, 1958; Timetable on Project (University Park: Pennsylvania State UniPluto, AEC 564/29, Sept. 24, 1958, all versity Press, 1969), pp. 233-34. in AEC; John S. D. Eisenhower, Memo- 18. Annual Report, 1959, pp. 152-53. randum of Conference with the President, 19. Goodpaster, Memorandum of Conference Nov. 8, 1960, DDE; Kistiakowsky, A Sci- with the President, April 2, 1959, DDE;

entist at the White House, pp. 122-23, Killian to Eisenhower, April 2, 1959, in

2957, 303. AEC 603/60, April 16, 1959, AEC;

10. Pittman to McCone, May 23, 1960, AEC; Public Papers of the Presidents of the Washington Post, Jan. 17, 1959, p. 1; United States, 1959: Dwight D. EtsenAEC, Annual Report to the Congress, hower (Washington: Government Printing 1959 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1960), pp. 399-406; McCone to Office, 1960), pp. 78-81 (hereafter cited Luedecke, Aug. 6, 1959; Luedecke to Annual Report, 1959); AEC, Annual McCone, Oct. 24, 1959, in AEC 1036,

Report to the Congress, 1960 (Washing- Nov. 16, 1959: CM 1572, Dee. II, ton: Government Printing Office, 1961), 1959, all in AEC; Kistiakowsky, A Scipp. 149-52 (hereafter cited Annual Re- entist at the White House, pp. 147-48.

port, 1960). 20. Piore to McCone and_ Kistiakowsky, 65]

11. Annual Report, 1960, pp. 132-39. Feb. 5, 1960, in AEC 603/66, Feb. 17,

12. Richard G. Hewlett and Francis Duncan, 1960; Kistiakowsky toMcCone, March 16,

Nuclear Navy, 1946-1962 (Chicago: 1960, in AEC 603/69, March 25, 1960; University of Chicago Press, 1974), Brown to File, March 23, 1960, all in

pp. 220-24, 259-67 (hereafter cited AEC; W. B. Persons to Goodpaster,

Nuclear Navy); Harvey M. Sapolsky, The March 23, 1960, DDE; Kistiakowsky, A Polaris System Development: Bureaucratic Scientist at the White House, pp. 223, and Programmatic Success in Government 233. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 21. Kistiakowsky to McCone, Sept. 27, 1972), pp. 11, 22-23, 31, 132; Wynd- 1960; Director of Research, High Energy ham D. Miles, “The Polaris,” Technology Physics Program and Stanford Linear Ac-

and Culture 4 (Fall 1963): 478-81. celerator, AEC 603/73, Dec. 16, 1960; 13. Nuclear Navy, pp. 207-15, 270, Piore to McCone and _ Kistiakowsky,

278-81. Dec. 15, 1960, transmitting the panel re-

14. Ibid., pp. 281-82, 310-18, 370-71; port; Kistiakowsky to McCone, Dec. 21,

Director of International Affairs, Coop- 1960, in AEC 603/74, Dee. 29, 1960, all eration with the Netherlands in the Field in AEC. The panel report and other docuof Nuclear Submarine Propulsion, AEC ments were published in Joint Committee

1021/6, Oct. 27, 1959; CM 1564, on Atomic Energy, Report on Background Nov. 3, 1959; Eisenhower to McCone, Information on the High Energy Physics Sept. 28, 1960; CM 1660, Oct. 7, 1960; Program and the Proposed Stanford LinMcCone to Goodpaster, Oct. 7, 1960; ear Electron Accelerator Project (WashHoward C. Brown, Memorandum of Com- ington: Government Printing Office, mission Discussion, Oct. 21, 1960, all in 1961). AEC; Kistiakowsky, A Scientist at the 22. As quoted in Joan L. Bromberg, Fusion:

White House, pp. 78-79. Science, Politics, and the Invention of a

15. Director of Research, Interagency Sup- New Energy Source (Cambridge: MIT port of High Energy Physics, AEC 603/ Press, 1982), p. 68 (hereafter cited

50, Oct. 7, 1958, AEC. Bromberg, Fusion). This and the follow-

16. Director of Research, U.S. Policy and ing paragraphs depend heavily on Brom-

Actions in High Energy Accelerator berg, pp. 68-88.

Physics, AEC 603/53, Nov. 28, 1958; 23. Ibid., pp. 89-105; AEC, Twenty-second CM 1445, Dec. 17, 1958, both in AEC. Semiannual Report (Washington: Govern17. Special Panel of the President’s Science ment Printing Office, 1957), pp. 96-105. Advisory Committee and the General Ad- 24. McCone to Luedecke, July 24, 1959; CM

visory Committee, U.S. Policy and Ac- 1533, Aug. 4, 1959; Summary Notes of tions in High Energy Accelerator Phys- Briefings on Intelligence Matters and ics, Nov. 25, 1958, AEC; Richard G. Project Sherwood, Oct. 5, 1959; SumHewlett and Francis Duncan, Atomic mary Notes on Review of Controlled

NOTES TO PAGES 527-35

Thermonuclear Research Program, Jan. 39. Department of State, Memorandum of

10, 1961, all in AEC. Vice-President’s Conversation with Koz-

25. Lewis L. Strauss, Men and Decisions lov, July 25, 1959, AEC. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1962), 40. McCone to Rickover, July 28, 1959; Far-

p. 335. ley to Kohler, Sept. 10, 1959, both in

26. Director of Military Application, Confer- AEC.

ence on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, 41. AEC, Memorandum of Conversation be-

AEC 811/4, Nov. 26, 1956, AEC. tween Rickover and Emelyanov, Aug. 2, 27. Director of Military Application, Non- 1959; Transcript, Joint Committee ExecuMilitary Uses of Explosive Nuclear De- tive Session on Rickover Trip, Aug. 9, vices, AEC 811/6, June 13, 1957, AEC. 1959, both in AEC. 28. Director of Military Application, Non- 42. Memorandum of Conversation between Military Uses of Nuclear Explosive De- Emelyanov and McCone, Sept. 15, 1959,

vices, AEC 811/7, Nov. 22, 1957; CM AEC.

1317, Nov. 27, 1957, both in AEC. 43. Department of State, Memorandum of 29. Ramey to LaPlante, Dec. 9, 1957; AEC Conversation with the President, Sept. Press Release A-203, Aug. 6, 1958, both 22, 1959, DOS. in AEC; Joint Committee on Atomic En- 44. Meeting of McCone and Emelyanov,

652 ergy, Hearings on Fallout from Nuclear Sept. 25, 1959; AEC Press Release B-

Weapons Tests, Vol. 3, May 5-8, 1959 172, Sept. 25, 1959; McCone, Memoran(Washington: Government Printing Of- dum of Discussion, Sept. 26, 1959, all in fice, 1959), pp. 2198-99; AEC, Twenty- AEC; Goodpaster to Herter, Sept. 28, third Semiannual Report (Washington: 1959, DOS. AEC files contain a large Government Printing Office, 1958), p. 276. collection of news clippings on the Khru-

30. Strauss to Gates, Feb. 27, 1958; CM shchev visit.

1353, April 9, 1958, both in AEC. 45. Luedecke, Memorandum for the Record, 31. Director of Military Application, Non- Sept. 30, 1959; AEC Press Release BMilitary Uses of Nuclear Explosive De- 183, Oct. 7, 1959; McCone, Random vices, AEC 811/12, June 6, 1958; CM Notes on Russian Trip, Oct. 19, 1959; 1381, June 12, 1958; Teller to H. A. AEC News Conference with McCone, Fidler, June 27, 1958, in AEC 811/ Oct. 27, 1959; AEC, Visit of U.S. Team 18, July 21, 1958; AEC Press Release to U.S.5.R. Atomic Energy Installations, A-136, June 9, 1958; AEC Press Release Report TID-6793, Oct. 1959, all in

A-203, Aug. 6, 1958, all in AEC. AEC.

32. Graham to McCone, Sept. 19, 1958; Di- 46. Goodpaster, Memorandum of Conference rector of Military Application, Plowshare with the President, Oct. 27, 1959, DDE;

Program, AEC 811/27, Oct. 14, 1958; McCone to File, Oct. 27, 1959, AEC. McCone to Herter, Oct. 21, 1958, in 47. AEC Press Release B-199, Oct. 31, AEC 811/30, Nov. 11, 1958; Herter to 1959; Raymond L. Garthoff, MemoranMcCone, Oct. 28, 1958, in AEC 811/29, dum for the Record, Nov. 19, 1959; AEC

Oct. 31, 1958, all in AEC. Proposal for Unclassified Exchanges with 33. Kistiakowsky to Floberg, Feb. 19, 1960, the U.S.S.R., AEC 1037, Nov. 14, 1959;

in AEC 603/67, Feb. 25, 1960, AEC. CM 1568, Nov. 17, 1959; MecCone,

34. See Chap. 9, High Energy Physics. Rec- Memorandum for the Record, Nov. 19, ommendations of IUPAP Commission for 1959, all in AEC; Goodpaster, Memoran-

High Energy Physics, AEC 603/52, dum of Conference with the President,

Nov. 6, 1958, AEC. Nov. 11, 1959, DDE.

35. Bromberg, Fusion, pp. 91-93. 48. Memorandum of Cooperation, Nov. 24,

36. Department of State, Joint U.S.-— 1959, AEC.

U.S.5.R. Communiqué on Agreement on 49. John S. D. Eisenhower, Memorandum of

Exchanges, Press Release 33, Jan. 27, Conference with the President, Nov. 24,

1958, AEC. 1959, DDE.

37. Hall to File, June 19, 1959, AEC. 90. AEC Press Release C-89, May 11, 1960; 38. Director of Intelligence, Visit of Soviet Record of Meeting with Professor EmelNationals to AEC Facilities, AEC 901/ yanov on High Energy Physics, AEC 828/ 15, June 22, 1959; CM 1624, July 1, 24, June 3, 1960; George E. Kolstad and

1959, both in AEC. E. J. Lofgren, Visit of U.S. High-Energy

NOTES TO PAGES 535-42

Physics Team to U.S.S.R., May 1960, pp. 1080-82 (hereafter cited Documents AEC Report TID-6597, all in AEC. on Disarmament); Morse to Commissionol. AEC Press Release C-127, July 2, 1960; ers, Second Status Report—Geneva ConHall, Memorandum of Conversation with ference, June 30, 1958, AEC. Emelyanov, Sept. 26, 1960, both in 7. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,

AEC. Hearings on the Nomination of John A.

o2. Hall, Memorandum of Conversation with McCone to Be a Member of the Atomic En-

Emelyanov, Nov. 19, 1960, AEC. ergy Commission, July 2, 1958 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1958),

pp. 21-22. 8. Charles Thayer, Diplomat (New York:

CHAPTER TWENTY Harper, 1959), p. 106, as quoted in

Robert Gilpin, American Scientists and

1. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Nuclear Weapons Policy (Princeton: Hearings on Amending the Atomic Energy Princeton University Press, 1962),

Act of 1954, Jan. 29~May 28, 1958 pp. 221-22 (hereafter cited Gilpin, (Washington: Government Printing Of- American Scientists and Nuclear Weapons

fice, 1958), pp. 446-75. Policy). Scientists from Rumania, Czecho-

2. Congressional Record, 85 Cong., 2 sess., slovakia, and Poland also joined the 653

June 30, 1958, p. 12586. Eastern delegation. See Aide-Memoire

3. Other members of the U.S. delegation from the Soviet Foreign Ministry to the included Perry Byerly, Norman Haskel, American Embassy: Geneva Experts Spurgeon Keeny, Jr., J. Carson Mark, Conference on Nuclear Tests, June 24, Doyle Northrup, George Olmstead, Carl F. 1958, Documents on Disarmament,

Romney, Herbert Scoville, Jr., and pp. 1078-79.

Anthony Turkevich. Harold K. Jacobson 9. Minutes, Second Meeting, July 2, 1958,

and Eric Stein, Diplomats, Scientists, Conference of Experts; Morse to Strauss, and Politicans: The United States and the July 2, 1958, LLS. Nuclear Test Ban Negotiations (Ann Ar- 10. Jacobson and Stein, Diplomats, Scienbor: The University of Michigan Press, tists, and Politicians, p. 73. 1966), pp. 54-55 (hereafter cited Jacob- 11. Report of the Conference of Experts to son and Stein, Diplomats, Scientists, and Study the Methods of Detecting Viola-

Politicians). tions of a Possible Agreement on the Sus-

4. Spiers, Memorandum of Conversation: pension of Nuclear Tests, Aug. 20, 1958, Meeting with U.S. Experts for Geneva pp. 1-26, in Conference of Experts. ReTechnical Talks on Nuclear Test Detec- garding the location of control posts, the tion, June 6, 1958, DOS; CM 1380, report suggested North America, twenty-

June 6, 1958, AEC. four; Europe, six; Asia, thirty-seven;

3. Goodpaster, Memorandum of Conference Australia, seven; South America, sixwith the President, June 18, 1958, DDE: teen; Africa, sixteen; Antarctica, four: Declassification of Information for use at and sixty posts scattered on islands. the Geneva Technical Conference on the 12. James R. Killian, Jr., Sputnik, Scientists,

Control of a Nuclear Test Moratorium, and Eisenhower: A Memoir of the First AEC 226/143, June 24, 1958, AEC. Special Assistant to the President for Sci6. Minutes, First Meeting, July 1, 1958, ence and Technology (Cambridge: MIT Conference of Experts to Study the Pos- Press, 1977), p. 161 (hereafter cited sibility of Detecting Violations of a Pos- Killian, Sputnik, Scientists, and Eisensible Agreement on Suspension of Nuclear hower); Fisk to Killian, Aug. 3, 1958, Tests, Geneva, Joint Committee — on DDE. Fisk reported the findings of the Atomic Energy, AEC (hereafter cited conference of experts to the National SeConference of Experts); Aide-Memoire curity Council. Summary of Discussion, from the Soviet Foreign Ministry to the Meeting 378, Aug. 28, 1958, DDE. For

American Embassy: Geneva Experts a critique of the “amateur scientist-

Conference on Nuclear Tests, June 25, diplomats” at the Geneva Conference 1958, Documents on Disarmament, of Experts, see Gilpin, American Scien-

1945-1959, Vol. II, 1957-1959 (De- tists and Nuclear Weapons Policy, partment of State Publication 7008), pp. 218-22.

NOTES TO PAGES 543-52

13. Working Papers on System to Detect Nu- Discontinuance of Nuclear Weapons clear Tests, AEC 226/155, Aug. 4, 1958; Tests, Aug. 29, 1958; Note From the SoComments on Draft Working Paper Rela- viet Foreign Ministry to the American tive to Systems to Detect Nuclear Tests, Embassy: Negotiations on the Suspension

AEC 226/156, Aug. 6, 1958, both in of Nuclear Weapons Tests, Aug. 30,

AEC. 1958, both in Documents on Disarma-

14. McCone to File, Discussions, Livermore, ment, pp. 1114-20.

July, 22, 1958, AEC; Report by the Gen- 27. Bernhard G. Bechhoefer, Postwar Negoeral Manager, Consideration of Proposed tiations for Arms Control (Washington:

Letter to Secretary of State Regarding Brookings Institution, 1961), pp. 458Control of Nuclear Tests, Aug. 3, 1958, 61; Robert A. Divine, Blowing on the

AEC. Wind: The Nuclear Test Ban Debate,

15. Farley to McCone, Aug. 7, 1958, in AEC 1954-1960 (New York: Oxford Univer-

226/157, Aug. 8, 1958, AEC. sity Press, 1978), pp. 234-35.

16. CM 1395 and 1396, Aug. 8, 1958, AEC; 28. Teller to Strauss, Sept. 13, 1958, LLS;

Strauss to File, Aug. 8, 1958, LLS. McCone, Notes on my discussion with 17. Starbird to Commissioners and Foster, Edward Teller. . . [on] Sept. 14, Sept. 17, Report of Meeting re Test Cessation, 1958; McCone to Eisenhower, Oct. 2,

654. Aug. 9, 1958, and Further Meeting of 13 16, 24, and 27, 1958, all in AEC. August Concerning a Position Relative to 29. Fallout from the Last Russian Test SeTest Limitation, Aug. 14, 1958, both in ries, AEC 240/18, Dec. 16, 1958; AEC; Summary of Meeting Held in the Readiness for Nuclear Weapons Testing,

State Department from 4:00 to 6:20 AEC 226/172, Oct. 30, 1958: CM 1424,

p.m. on August 13, DDE. Nov. 12, 1958, all in AEC.

18. Goodpaster, Memorandum of Conference 30. Statement by the President Concerning with the President, Aug. 12, 1958, DDE. the Continued Testing of Nuclear Weap19. Goodpaster, Memorandum of Conference ons by the Soviet Union, Nov. 7, 1958,

with the President, Aug. 18, 1958; Pro- Public Papers, 1958, Eisenhower,

posal to Suspend Nuclear Weapons Test- pp. 838-39. ing, Aug. 18, 1958, both in DDE. 31. As quoted in Gilpin, American Scientists 20. Goodpaster, Memorandum of Conference and Nuclear Weapons Policy, p. 215. with the President, Aug. 19, 1958, DDE. 32. Ibid., p. 226; Killian to McCone, Dec. 5, 21. Goodpaster, Memorandum of Conference 1958; Killian to Quarles, Dec. 9, 1958,

with the President, Aug. 25, 1958, DDE. both in AEC. 22. Strauss to File, Aug. 20, 1958, LLS. 33. Starbird to Foster, Oct. 27, 1958, in AEC 23. Statement by the President Following the 952/69, Nov. 4, 1958; Starbird to Foster, Geneva Meeting of Experts Proposing Nov. 14, 1958, in AEC 987/15, Nov. 24, Negotiations on Nuclear Controls, Aug. 1958, both in AEC. 22, 1958, Public Papers of the Presidents 34. CM 1447, Dec. 19, 1958; D. L. Northrup

of the United States, 1958: Dwight D. to Chief, AFOAT-1, Dec. 22, 1958, in Eisenhower (Washington: Government AEC 987/17, Jan. 14, 1959, both in Printing Office, 1959), pp. 635-36 AEC; Gilpin, American Scientists and (hereafter cited Public Papers, 1958, ki- Nuclear Weapons Policy, pp. 214-18. senhower); Communiqué and Report of 35. Morse to McCone, Dec. 9, 1958, AEC. the Conference of Experts to Study the 36. Strauss to File, Dec. 10, 1958, LLS. Possibility of Detecting Violations of a 37. Killian, Sputnik, Scientists, and Eisen-

Possible Agreement on the Suspension of hower, pp. 170-71. Nuclear Tests, Aug. 21, 1958, Docu- 38. Conference on the Discontinuance of Numents on Disarmament, pp. 1090-111. clear Weapon Tests, Verbatim Record of 24. The President’s News Conference of Aug. Twenty-first Meeting, Dec. 8, 1958, 27, 1958, Public Papers, 1958, Kisen- pp. 25-52, AEC; Gilpin, American Scien-

hower, pp. 639-50. tists and Nuclear Weapons Policy, p. 229.

25. Statement by the British Government: 39. Gordon Gray to Dulles et al., Nov. 26, Experts’ Report on Detection of Nuclear 1958, and Gore to Eisenhower, Nov. 19, Tests, Aug. 22, 1958, Documents on Dis- 1958, both in AEC 226/179, Dee. 2,

armament, pp. 1112-13. 1958; Evaluation of Test Suspension Pro-

26. Interview by the Soviet Premier [Khru- posal by Senator Gore, AEC 226/182, shchev] With a Pravda Correspondent: Dec. 9, 1958; CM 1451, Jan. 9, 1959;

NOTES TO PAGES 552-59

CM 1453, Jan. 12, 1959, all in AEC; with the President, May 5, 1959, DDE: Macmillan to Eisenhower, Jan. 1, 1959; McCone to File, May 5, 1959; Depart-

Eisenhower to Macmillan, Jan. 12, 1959, ment of State, Memorandum of Converboth in DOS; John S. D. Eisenhower, sation, May 5, 1959, both in AEC. Memorandum of Conference with the 50. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, President, Jan. 12, 1959; Gray to Eisen- Hearings on Fallout from Nuclear Weaphower, Jan. 13, 1959, both in DDE; New ons Tests, May 5—8, 1959 (Washington:

York Times, Jan. 20, 1959. Government Printing Office, 1959),

40. Proposed AEC Position on Test Cessa- pp. 155-482, 949-1004.

tion, AEC 226/190, Dec. 22, 1958; CM ol. Department of State, Memorandum of 1448, Dec. 22, 1958; Vance to Herter, Conversation, June 17, 1959, DOS; Ink Dec. 23, 1958, in AEC 226/193, Dec. 31, to the Commissioners, June 18, 1959,

1958; McCone to Herter, Jan. 19, 1959; AEC. CM 1459, Jan. 26, 1959, all in AEC. 92. CM 1526, July 2, 1959; Summary Notes 41. Department of State, Memorandum of of Briefing on the Bacher Panel Report,

Conversation, Jan. 26, 1959; McCone to July 9, 1959; Department of State, Dulles, Feb. 2, 1959, both in AEC; De- Memorandum of Conversation, July 9, partment of State, Memorandum of Con- }959, all in AEC. versation, Jan. 30, 1959; Herter to 53. Director of Military Application, Studies 655 McCone, Feb. 16, 1959, both in DOS. in Connection with Weapons Testing, 42. Bromley Smith, Meeting on Nuclear Test- AEC 226/213, July 2, 1959; CM 1529, ing, Feb. 12, 1959, DDE; Department July 17, 1959, both in AEC. of State, Memorandum of Conversation, 94. Starbird to McCone, July 13, 1959; Re-

Feb. 26, 1959, AEC. port of Ad Hoc Panel on Nuclear Test Re-

43. Findings of the United States Panel on quirements, Aug. 18, 1959, both in Seismic Improvement, March 16, 1959, AEC; Statement by the Department of Documents on Disarmament, pp. 1367-— State: Extension of Voluntary Suspension

71; Report of the Panel on Seismic Im- of Nuclear Weapons Tests, Aug. 26, provement, March 16, 1959, encl., Kil- 1959, Documents on Disarmament, lian to Herter et al., March 17, 1959, pp. 1439-40; Coodpaster, MemoranAEC; The Need for Fundamental Re- dums of Conferences with the President,

search in Seismology, March 31, July 13, Sept. 22, 1959, DDE; Depart1959, Documents on Disarmament, ment of State, Memorandums of Conver-

pp. 1378-92. sations, Aug. 26, Sept. 22, 1959, DOS:

44. A. L. Latter et al., A Method of Conceal- George B. Kistiakowsky, A Scientist at ing Underground Nuclear Explosions, the White House (Cambridge: Harvard March 30, 1959, Rand Report RM-2347- University Press, 1976), pp. 55-56, 79 AFT; W. K. H. Panofsky et al., Report of (hereafter cited Kistiakowsky, A Scientist the Panel on High Altitude Detection, at the White House).

March 16, 1959, both in AEC, 50. Starbird to McCone, Oct. 26, 1959; Neil

45. Farley, Memorandum of Conversation, McElroy to Eisenhower, Sept. 14, 1959; March 21, 1959: G. F. Reinhardt, Memo- McCone to Eisenhower, Dec. 24, 1959, randum of Conversation, March 22, 1959; all in AEC. McCone to File, March 23, 1959, all in) 56. Department of State, Memorandum of

AEC; italics McCone’s. Conversation, Nov. 17, 1959, DOS; Re-

46. Department of State, Memorandum of port of Technical Working Group I: DeConversation, March 26, 1959, DOS; tection and Identification of Seismic Herter to Eisenhower, March 28, 1959, Events, Dec. 18, 1959, and Statement of

DDE. the United States Representative (Fisk),

47. Eisenhower to Macmillan, April 4, 1959; Dec. 19, 1959, both in Documents on

Macmillan to Eisenhower, April 10, Disarmament, pp. 1558-90. 1959, both in DOS; Eisenhower to Khru- 57. Statement by the President, Dec. 29,

shchev, April 13, 1959, Documents on 1959, Documents on Disarmament,

Disarmament, pp. 1392-93. pp. 1590-91.

48. Khrushchev to Eisenhower, April 23, 08. Department of State, Memorandums of

1959, Documents on Disarmament, Conversations, Jan. 8, 12, 19, 1960,

pp. 1396-98. AEC; Kistiakowsky, A Scientist at the

49. Goodpaster, Memorandum of Conference White House, pp. 222-23, 232-33.

NOTES TO PAGES 559-63

99. White House Statement on the Cessation AEC; Kistiakowsky to Eisenhower, May

of Nuclear Weapon Tests, Feb. 11, 3, 1960; John S. D. Eisenhower, Memo1960, Documents on Disarmament, 1960 randum of Conference with the President,

(Department of State Publication 7172), July 7, 1960; Department of State, pp. 31-33 (hereafter cited Documents on Memorandum of Conversation, Aug. 2,

Disarmament, 1960). 1960, all in DDE; Joint Committee on 60. Department of State, Memorandum of Atomic Energy, Hearing on Technical AsConversation, March 22, 1960, AEC; pects of Detection and Inspection Controls Kistiakowsky, A Scientist at the White of a Nuclear Weapons Test Ban, April

House, p. 279. 19-22, 1960 (Washington: Government

61. Department of State, Memorandum of Printing Office, 1960). Conversation, March 23, 1960; Starbird to McCone, March 8, 1960, both in AEC; Kistiakowsky, A Scientist at the White

House, p. 281; Coodpaster, Memoran- CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE dum of Conference with the President,

March 14, 1960, DDE. 1. Public Papers of the Presidents of the

62. Starbird to McCone, March 23, 1960; United States, 1960-61: Dwight D. Ei656 McCone to File, March 24, 1960, both in senhower (Washington: Government PrintAEC; Goodpaster, Memorandum of Con- ing Office, 1961), pp. 1036-40. The full

ference with the President, March 24, text of the speech appeared in the New 1960, DDE; Kistiakowsky, A Scientist at York Times, Jan. 18, 1961, pp. 22-24. the White House, p. 282; Joint Declara- Herbert S. Parmet, Eisenhower and the tion, March 29, 1960, Documents on Dis- American Crusades (New York: Macmil-

armament, 1960, pp. 77-78. lan, 1972), p. 57.

63. Strauss to File, March 31, 1960, LLS. 2. Dwight D. Eisenhower, Waging Peace, 64. Director of Military Application, Con- 1956-1961 (Garden City, NY: Doubleducting Nuclear Detonations for Seismic day, 1965), pp. 617, 712—16; Hagerty Improvement, AEC 226/245, April 26, Diary, Dec. 6, 1960, James C. Hagerty 1960; CM 1614, April 28, 1960; Depart- Papers; Persons, Memorandum of Conment of State, Memorandums of Conver- versation, Jan. 19, 1961, both in DDE. sations, June 30, July 6, 1960, all in

ESSAY ON SOURCES by

Roger M. Anders

Increasingly, major historical projects require the cooperative efforts of professional researchers and writers. This book was not only written by Hewlett and Holl but also supported by the research of Department of Energy staff historians. This team effort has enabled the historians to review extensive published and unpublished sources pertinent to the history of nuclear energy during the Eisenhower Administration. In this “Essay on Sources” I have especially tried to evaluate the principal record collections, books,

and other sources used by the authors for their value and pertinence to understanding the history of United States nuclear energy policy.

GENERAL NOTE ABOUT SOURCES

During the Eisenhower years the development of atomic energy in the United States left the exclusive preserve of the Atomic Energy Commission. Consequently, the record of atomic energy development of the period can be found in the collections of numerous public and private institutions. An expanding secondary literature reflects increased scholarly interest in the importance of atomic energy history. In addition, the volume and richness

of sources on the Eisenhower years have provided the foundation for an extensive scholarly literature on the history of public policy. As noted in the Preface, more than anyone Eisenhower set the national agenda for atomic energy issues in the 1950s. As one consequence of his strong presidential leadership, atomic energy policy was often made

ESSAY ON SOURCES

in the White House rather than in the Commission’s conference room. Hence, for the historian of atomic energy policy, the papers of the President and his colleagues, assistants, and staff found at the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library are essential. Despite Eisenhower's policy-making role, the files compiled by the Secretary of the Atomic Energy Commission remain the best source for day-

to-day decisions made during the decade, as well as for evidence of the problems and controversies that plagued the development of atomic energy during the 1950s. We believe scholars will find the AEC secretariat files truly remarkable for the depth and breadth of issues, information, and decisions that the files captured. Reflecting the opening of atomic energy to American society, most Commission documents in secretariat files were no

longer “born classified.” An increasing percentage were “born unclassified,” although areas such as weapon development and the production of 658 special nuclear material remain largely classified even today. In addition to White House and Commission files other sources provided essential information on the evolution of atomic energy policy. Published and unpublished State Department records captured the role of the Secretary of State and his special assistants in devising policy on international Atoms-for-Peace programs, arms control, and test-ban issues. Congressional hearings contained a wealth of basic information about atomic energy and were vital for depicting policy and philosophical differences between the Administration and the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy over civilian nuclear power programs. As documentary declassification has released more data, an even greater variety of materials has become available for scholarly research. Building on the increasing availability of primary sources, a secondary literature pertinent to atomic energy has been expanding geometrically. This trend has been heartening, and historians and other scholars will profit from these developments.

UNPUBLISHED SOURCES PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES

Consistent with President Eisenhower’s strong leadership, the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library contains a number of essential collections for the historian of atomic energy. The most comprehensive source for Eisenhower's leadership is Dwight D. Eisenhower: Records as President, White House central files, 1953-1961, compiled by his secretary, Ann Whitman. Although many documents remain classified, the key documents in this collection are the memoranda of presidential conversations carefully prepared by Andrew J. Goodpaster and his successors at the White House.

ESSAY ON SOURCES

The Goodpaster memoranda capture presidential thoughts, conversations, decisions, actions, and attitudes about atomic energy with a depth, subtlety, and comprehensiveness found in no other documentary source. If nothing else, the thoroughness and accuracy of Goodpaster’s record keeping has assured Eisenhower a prominent place in the history of atomic energy. Another rich source for Goodpaster memoranda are the records of the White House Office, Office of the Staff Secretary: Records of Paul T. Carroll, Andrew J. Goodpaster, L. Arthur Minnich, and Christopher H.

Russell, 1953-1961. Also of major value are the records of the White House Office, Project “Clean Up”: Records of Gordon Gray, Robert Cutler, Henry R. McPhee, and Andrew J. Goodpaster, 1953-1961. Indispensable at the Eisenhower Library are the minutes of National

Secretary Council meetings found in Eisenhower: Records as President. Eisenhower used the council as a crucial policy making body; hence the

minutes of its meetings also shed much light on policy formulation and 659 presidential thinking. Unfortunately most documents in the collection remain classified, and access to them, even for historians with security clearances, has become increasingly difficult. A number of other collections give important glimpses into the making of atomic energy policy by the President and his advisers. Particularly useful for tracing the development of policy in the Atoms-for-Peace and test-ban areas are the Dulles/Herter, Stassen, and C. D. Jackson papers. Less helpful are the Sherman Adams, Joseph M. Dodge, Gordon Gray, Bryce Harlow, Robert Merriam, Gerald D. Morgan, and Howard Pyle papers. Presidential Press Secretary James Hagerty’s diary provides behindthe-scenes vignettes about the Administration; Robert H. Ferrell has edited it as The Diary of James C. Hagerty: Eisenhower in Mid-Course, 1954— 1955 (Bloomington, IN, 1983). Cabinet records provide some interesting material on the impact of nuclear weapon developments on civil defense procedures, although generally the Cabinet conducted few significant discussions of atomic energy. The oral history collection of the Library provided some material pertinent to atomic energy and the authors examined the interviews with Dwight D. Eisenhower (Columbia University oral history project), Gordon Gray, Jesse C. Johnson, John Davis Lodge, Kevin McCann, John A. McCone, Kenneth D. Nichols, James J. Wadsworth, and David W. Wainhouse.

Lewis L. Strauss created his own files of “personal” memoranda about atomic energy matters during his tenure as chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. Until recently these materials remained in the custody

of the Strauss family. Lewis H. Strauss graciously made his father’s personal files available to the authors while the records were still in Washington. The Strauss files have since been donated to the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and are open to researchers. They are vital for showing

ESSAY ON SOURCES

Strauss’s views on atomic energy issues and his role in both making and executing policy. COMMISSION RECORDS

Files created by the Atomic Energy Commission are essential for any study of atomic energy in this period. Although the Commission was abolished in 1975, the Commission’s official records, with the exception of those dealing with regulatory matters, were transferred to the custody of the history division in the Department of Energy. They form a rich source for both policy formulation and policy implementation. The secretary’s files are devoted to recording all decisions made by the five members of the Atomic Energy Commission. Occupying over 500

cubic feet, the secretariat files are one of the best organized collections maintained by a federal agency. They contain minutes of Commission meet-

660 ings, information and decision papers organized into staff paper series, and copies of minutes of advisory committee meetings. Included in the files are documents showing policy implementation interspersed throughout with key press releases and speeches. Descriptions of the secretariat files also appear in the essays on sources of Richard G. Hewlett and Francis Duncan, Atomic Shield, 1947-1952, Volume II of A History of the United States Atomic Energy Commission (University Park, PA, 1969), and of George T. Mazuzan and J. Samuel Walker, Controlling the Atom: The Beginnings of Nuclear Regulation, 1946—1962 (Berkeley, CA, 1984). The subject files, which contain official copies of information and decision papers, are the heart of the secretariat collection. Adopting a format devised by the Joint Chiefs of Staff during World War II, the Commission organized its files according to a subject-numeric records management system. The Commission’s decisions were thus recorded in the minutes by their approval or disapproval of a numbered staff paper. This numbering system has facilitated tracing Commission policy through the subject files and meeting minutes. In this volume the authors have provided the staff paper numbers in their endnote citations. Other Commission files supplement the secretariat files. Individual Commissioners generally kept office files, although the extant files vary greatly in quality and quantity. Surviving Commissioner office files, understandably, are usually richest in matters in which the individual Commissioner took a personal interest. Willard F. Libby, for example, maintained extensive correspondence files on Project Sunshine. Commissioner Thomas E. Murray’s office files are in the custody of family friends, who made only a portion of them available to the authors on a piecemeal basis. As previously noted, Lewis Strauss office files are at the Hoover Library. Typical of John A. McCone’s thoroughness and drive, his office files are complete and particularly revealing about test-ban issues.

ESSAY ON SOURCES

Some records below the top level of the agency are helpful in tracing policy development. The files of the general manager’s office, although devoted almost entirely to implementing policy, contain occasional glimpses of policy formulation. Files of the division of biology and medicine contain valuable insights into the scientific and technical considerations on which policies were based. Particularly helpful among files of the division of international affairs is a collection containing materials on the establishment

of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Not only is this group especially complete, but it also captures the activities of the State Department as well as those of the Commission. Activities of the Commission’s field offices and laboratories were usually too far removed from major policy issues for their files to contain much insight on presidential decisions. Extant Commission field office and laboratory files are, however, a rich and detailed treasure trove of technical

information. 661

A boon to the historian is the massive effort that the Department of Energy is now mounting to declassify records pertinent to atmospheric nuclear weapon testing and fallout. One of the largest declassification projects ever conducted by a federal agency, the project has already declassified or released more than 100,000 documents. Commission records from the secretary’s office to the weapon laboratories have been examined and processed by project researchers. Major topics for which documents have been declassified include weapon test programs, radiation standards, radiation injuries, weapon development, programs to detect and evaluate radioactive fallout, and other items pertinent to the fallout controversy of the 1950s. The record collection resulting from this project is available to the public through the Coordination and Information Center at Las Vegas, Nevada. OTHER GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES

Record collections important for tracing atomic energy policy making are found in the custody of several federal agencies. The State Department’s records service center contains several collections pertinent to the international atom. General “lot” files are of some help but the most valuable are the atomic energy “lot” files containing office files of Gerard C. Smith and Philip J. Farley, both special assistants to the Secretary of State for atomic energy. Federal Bureau of Investigation records pertinent to the J. Robert Oppenheimer security case have been declassified via the Freedom of Information Act and detail the bureau’s investigation and surveillance of Oppenheimer. Of great potential value are the records of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. The unclassified Joint Committee files have already been transferred to the National Archives. They contain some materials pertinent to the Oppenheimer security hearing but reveal little of the internal work-

ESSAY ON SOURCES

ings of the committee. The classified files, when they were in the custody of the Senate office of classified national security information, were closed to the authors. The classified files might have shed light on the internal workings of the committee and the views of its individual members. Thus, the authors were not able to examine those files that might have contained revealing glimpses of the Joint Committee’s role in a number of areas, including nuclear power policy. When this essay was written, the classified Joint Committee files were transferred from the Senate to the National Archives. We hope that the National Archives will be able to open the files to researchers in the near future. PRIVATE ARCHIVAL SOURCES

Private papers pertaining to atomic energy vary greatly in quality and gen-

erally have been disappointing. The Dulles papers in the custody of the 662 Princeton Library have a few items on the 1955 Geneva summit conference but little else pertinent to atomic energy. The Dulles Oral History Collection at Princeton contained helpful interviews, and the authors consulted the interviews with Sherman Adams, George V. Allen, Dillon Anderson, Robert R. Bowie, Herbert Brownell, Andrew J. Goodpaster, Richard M. Nixon, Lauris Norstad, and Arthur Radford. The J. Robert Oppenheimer papers at the Library of Congress have much on the early years of atomic energy but shed little light on Oppenheimer’s security hearing. The Clinton

P. Anderson papers at the Library of Congress are composed largely of constituent mail and were of little help. Also of little help were the Sherman Adams papers in the Dartmouth College Library and the Columbia University Oral History collection.

PUBLISHED SOURCES PERIODICALS

The coverage of atomic energy news increased in the 1950s, but greater coverage did not always mean better quality or broader scope of reporting. Not surprisingly, most new periodicals covered the civilian nuclear power field. For historical research the most useful of the nuclear power journals is Nucleonics. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists followed the broadest range of nuclear issues with the most consistency and insight and gave close coverage of the fallout controversy. Other largely scientific journals such as Physical Review, Scientific Monthly, Science, and Scientific Ameri-

can contain occasional pertinent articles. Popular reactions to atomic energy and its controversies can be found in the standard news magazines, such as Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report. Michigan Law Review, Business Week, Fortune, Foreign Affairs, and Vital Speeches also

ESSAY ON SOURCES

provide items of interest. Of all major daily newspapers, the New York Times followed atomic energy issues with the most depth and consistency. GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS

Government publications, as well, were increasingly filled with information on atomic energy, and four Commission publications deserve special mention. The Commission’s semiannual and annual reports to Congress, although designed to put the agency and its actions in the best possible light, expanded greatly during the 1950s with basic facts about the multitude of Commission programs and activities. Often these reports contain information that can be found nowhere else today. The drama and tension of the Oppenheimer security hearing has never been better captured than in the hearing transcript. Raw material for historians, /n the Matter of J. Robert

Oppenheimer: Texts of Principal Documents and Letters of Personnel Security Board, General Manager, and Commissioners (Washington, 1954) is the 663 major source for details of the hearing itself, although it reveals little about the circumstances that led to the hearing. With perhaps more contemporary

impact than the Oppenheimer transcript, A Report by the United States Atomic Energy Commission on the Effects of High-Yield Nuclear Explosions

(Washington, 1955) published the Commission’s official report on fallout from the Castle-Bravo shot as well as its justification of continental and Pacific testing. The 1957 edition of The Effects of Nuclear Weapons (Washington, 1957) presented the Commission’s most complete summary of the then known facts about nuclear weapon effects. Three other Executive Branch publications are also important for atomic energy history in this period. The Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, 1953-1960: Dwight D. Eisenhower (Washington, 1958-1961) includes presidential speeches, addresses, messages, press conferences, and statements. The Public Papers of the President is frequently the best source for public statements and authentic text. Many key test-ban and disarmament documents have been published in the State Department’s Documents on Disarmament series. The State Department’s short pamphlet, Disarmament: The Intensified Effort 1955-1958 (Washington, 1960), is a surprisingly helpful summary of disarmament negotiations. Both Geneva peaceful uses conferences published extensive amounts of technical data. All papers submitted to the 1955 conference were published in Proceedings of the International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy Held in Geneva 8 August—20 August 1955 (New York, 1956), in seventeen volumes, and the papers submitted to the 1958 conference were published in Proceedings of the Second United Nations International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy Held in Geneva I September—13 September 1958 (Geneva, 1958), in thirty-three volumes. In addition, the United States presented a multivolume set of technical

ESSAY ON SOURCES

works to the second Geneva conference. Published by the Addison-Wesley Publishing Company of Reading, Massachusetts, in 1958, the set includes

many works such as F. L. Cuthbert, Thorium Production Technology; Amasa 3. Bishop, Project Sherwood: The U.S. Program in Controlled Fuston; Chauncey Starr and Robert W. Dickinson, Sodium Graphite Reactors; Joseph R. Dietrich and Walter H. Zinn, eds., Solid Fuel Reactors; Andrew W. Kramer, Boiling Water Reactors; James A. Lane, H. G. MacPherson, and Frank Maslan, eds., Fluid Fuel Reactors; and a reprint of Glenn T. Seaborg, The Transuranium Elements. Congressional publications are another important, albeit voluminous, source. Much rich detail about the fallout controversy and the political battles over nuclear power programs was captured in Congressional hearings. Formal positions of opposing forces as well as occasional revelations about behind-the-scenes political compromises fill published hearing

664 transcripts. Many hearings also contain appendices of related documents, which are sometimes the only source for the documents. The most pertinent Congressional hearings were those held by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. Compiled by Commission personnel, the Legislative History of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (Washington, 1955) reprinted all Joint Committee hearings on the draft act, as well as excerpts

from the Congressional Record; it is the best single source for charting Congressional actions on the bill that became the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The most sustained and revealing documents about the controversies in Congress over nuclear power programs are the published Joint Committee hearings held annually between 1954 and 1963 under Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act. Rich in detail, much of it technical, the 202 hearings captured political differences over the appropriate role of the federal government in introducing nuclear reactor technology to American economic life. The Joint Committee’s published hearings on civil defense, the effects of atomic explosions on the weather, the International Atomic Energy Agency, EURATOM, and the 1958 amendment to the Atomic Energy Act that provided for greater atomic cooperation between the United States and its allies contain vital information without presenting as sustained a picture of Commission programs as do the 202 hearings. A landmark in the fallout controversy, the Joint Committee’s hearings on The Nature of Radioactive Fallout and Its Effects on Man (Washington, 1957) also form a virtual textbook of contemporary scientific knowledge about fallout and its potential hazards, mostly in layman’s language. Less useful are the 1959 Joint Committee fallout hearings and the hearings the Joint Committee held on test-ban issues. The Joint Committee, however, is not the only Congressional source for key atomic energy material. The Senate Armed Services Committee hearings on the Civil Defense Program (Washington, 1955) document the

ESSAY ON SOURCES

public’s initial realization that radioactive fallout from thermonuclear weap-

ons was a serious hazard. Good sources for disarmament issues are the hearings held by a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Commit-

tee led by Hubert H. Humphrey. More focused on purely civil defense issues are the hearings on civil defense of the House Government Operations Committee. Providing the most comprehensive statement of the bitterness that developed between Clinton Anderson and Lewis Strauss are the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee hearings, The Nomination of Lewis L. Strauss to be Secretary of Commerce (Washington, 1959). A primer of key documents relating to early Atoms-for-Peace programs is the Atoms for Peace Manual, A Compilation of Official Materials on International Cooperation for Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, December 1953—July 1955 (Washington, 1955) published by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The famous Gaither report of 1957 has been published

as a report of the Joint Committee on Defense Production. Contemporary 665 views and fears about the hazards of atmospheric testing in the 1950s can be found in Joint Hearing Before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Health Effects of Low-Level Radiation (Washington, 1979). LETTERPRESS DOCUMENTARY COLLECTIONS

Two letterpress documentary publications proved helpful. Adlai E. Stevenson’s papers were published under the editorship of Walter Johnson and others in a multivolume set as The Papers of Adlai Stevenson. The authors found volume VI, Toward a New America, 1955—1957 (Boston, 1976), and volume VII, Continuing Education and Unfinished Business of American

Society, 1957-1961 (Boston, 1977), the most useful, especially for the 1956 presidential campaign. Robert C. Williams and Philip L. Cantelon, eds., The American Atom: A Documentary History of Nuclear Policies from the Discovery of Fission to the Present, 1939—1984 (Philadelphia, 1984) reprints some key documents of the Oppenheimer security hearing as well as other key documents in the civilian power, test-ban, disarmament, and fallout areas. PERSONAL NARRATIVES

Memoir literature for the period is the least satisfying of all sources. Dwight

D. Eisenhower’s two volumes, Mandate for Change, 1953-1956 (New York, 1963) and Waging the Peace, 1956—1961 (New York, 1965), convey his concern about atomic energy matters without revealing the overriding importance and urgency that he attached to them. Moreover, his memoirs are concerned with maintaining his benign public image and only occasionally reveal the private and decisive Eisenhower.

ESSAY ON SOURCES

Robert H. Ferrell’s The Eisenhower Diaries (New York, 1981) contains vignettes of atomic energy matters but does not present a sustained or comprehensive view of Eisenhower's attitudes about atomic energy. Richard M. Nixon does not mention atomic energy issues in either Six Crises (New York, 1962) or The Memoirs of Richard Nixon (New York, 1978).

Several members of the Eisenhower Administration do, however, mention atomic energy matters in their memoirs. Sherman Adam’s Firsthand Report: The Story of the Eisenhower Administration (New York, 1961)

is helpful in sketching the impact of McCarthy on Eisenhower and the White House. James R. Killian’s Sputnik, Scientists, and Eisenhower: A Memoir of the First Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (Cambridge, 1977) provides a view of the organization and operation of the President’s Science Advisory Committee. Killian’s successor, George

666 B. Kistiakowsky, published his shrewd and penetrating insights in A Scientist at the White House: The Private Diary of President Eisenhower's Special Assistant for Science and Technology (Cambridge, 1976). One of the most revealing glimpses at the behind-the-scenes clashes within the Administration, Kistiakowsky’s diary is a classic of the genre. With a keen and vigorous mind, Kistiakowsky penetrated issues and personalities and reported concisely on them. Of much less help is Emmet John Hughes, The Ordeal of Power: A Political Memoir of the Eisenhower Years (New York, 1963).

Harold Macmillan provides the British perspective to test-ban negotiations and mutual defense agreements in Riding the Storm, 1956-1959 (London, 1971) and Pointing the Way, 1959-196] (London, 1972). Macmillan also makes revealing comments about John Foster Dulles, Harold Stassen, Lewis Strauss, and other members of the Eisenhower team. Anthony Eden presents his perspective on events, first as foreign secretary and later as prime minister during the 1951-1957 period, in The Memoirs of Anthony Eden: Full Circle (Boston, 1960). Eden, however, says little about atomic energy matters. The memoirs of men closer to atomic energy are not helpful. Gordon

E. Dean died before he could write his memoirs, and his Report on the Atom: What You Should Know About the Atomic Energy Program of the United States (New York, 1953) is written solely to introduce the layman to the atomic energy field. Lewis L. Strauss offers his version of events in Men and Decisions (New York, 1962) in which he is far more concerned about maintaining the rightness of his positions than in describing thoughts and rationales behind policy development. His antagonist, Clinton P. Anderson, has written his own breezy account of his career in Outsider in the Senate: Senator Clinton Anderson’s Memoirs (New York, 1970), which contains little of depth about atomic energy policy. As might be expected, both

ESSAY ON SOURCES

Strauss and Anderson continued their feud in their memoirs. In his memoirs, The Road to Trinity (New York, 1987), Kenneth D. Nichols includes

a chapter on his tenure as Commission general manager in which he explained his positions on the Oppenheimer case, Dixon-Yates, weapon testing, and other matters. Although no longer a policymaker, David E. Lilienthal, the Commission’s first chairman (1946-1950), maintained his Journals throughout the Eisenhower years and proved an astute critic of atomic energy policies. Thomas E. Murray’s Nuclear Policy for War and Peace (New York, 1960) contains arguments for his views on test-ban, nuclear power, security, and other issues rather than recollections of his service on the Commission. SECONDARY ACCOUNTS

No longer can scholars complain of a paucity of secondary works pertinent

to the postwar history of atomic energy. Although no good, single-volume 667 history of atomic energy in the United States exists, there is a rich literature on more specialized topics. The literature on the Oppenheimer case or on nuclear strategy could well be the subject of separate bibliographic essays. The literature on the Eisenhower Administration continues to grow impressively. | mention only the most useful works here.

A literature depicting Eisenhower as a decisive leader and activist President has emerged during research on this volume. So far have scholarly views about him altered that Philip G. Henderson calls Eisenhower a model of presidential management in “Organizing the Presidency for Effective Leadership: Lessons from the Eisenhower Years,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 17 (Winter 1987), and in Managing the Presidency: The Eisenhower Legacy (Westview, CT, 1988). Two excellent summaries of the “re-

visionist” literature on Eisenhower can be found in Mary S. McAuliffe, “Commentary/Eisenhower the President,” Journal of American History 68 (December 1981), and in Steve Neal, “Why We Were Right to Like Ike,” American Heritage 37 (December 1985). Perhaps the most thorough exploration of Eisenhower as an activist President is in Fred I. Greenstein, The Hidden-Hand Presidency: Eisenhower as Leader (New York, 1982). Green-

stein discussed the major themes of The Hidden-Hand Presidency more succinctly in “Eisenhower as an Activist President: A Look at New Evidence,” Political Science Quarterly 94 (Winter 1979-1980). Greenstein, though, says little about atomic energy matters. Richard A. Baker skillfully explores Congressional frustration at Eisenhower’s “hidden hand” dominance in “A Slap at the ‘Hidden-Hand Presidency’: The Senate and the Lewis Strauss Affair,” Congress and the Presidency 14 (Spring 1987). Of the “revisionist” literature, Stephen E. Ambrose’s Eisenhower,

Volume 2, The President (New York, 1984), contains the most complete single-volume treatment of Eisenhower’s presidential Administration and

ESSAY ON SOURCES

includes helpful, detailed accounts of Atoms-for-Peace negotiations and programs, nuclear weapon testing, the Oppenheimer case, and test-ban and disarmament negotiations. Ambrose also notes Eisenhower's early and profound commitment to slowing the arms race. His overall impression of Eisenhower's views on nuclear war as well as his conclusions about Eisenhower as a crisis manager agree with the impressions and conclusions of the authors of this volume. A short recent account that incorporates the latest findings of the “revisionists” is in Gary W. Reichard, Politics As Usual: The Age of Truman and Eisenhower (Arlington Heights, IL, 1988). Reichard includes brief discussions of the New Look, nuclear weapon policy, and the test-ban debate. Robert Griffith places Eisenhower’s views on civilian nuclear power into the context of his political philosophy and thought in “Eisenhower and the Corporate Commonwealth,” American Historical Review 87 (February 1982). Charles C. Alexander in Holding 668 the Line: The Eisenhower Era, 1952—1961 (Bloomington, IL, 1976) only superficially examines the Oppenheimer hearing, the Dixon-Yates controversy, test-ban negotiations, Atoms for Peace, and the fallout controversy in his reassessment of the Eisenhower years. Another comprehensive treatment of the Eisenhower Administration is Elmo Richardson’s The Presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower (Lawrence, KS, 1979). A volume in the University Press of Kansas American Presidency series, Richardson’s study is both too broadly cast and too brief to say much about atomic energy matters. Herbert S. Parmet’s Eisenhower and the American Crusades (New York, 1972) presents a well-balanced, detailed study of Eisenhower’s first Administration but is much less thorough on the second. Stephen E. Ambrose with Richard H. Immerman in [ke’s Spies: Eisenhower and the Espionage Establishment (New York, 1981) portrays Eisenhower as an activist

President while saying little about atomic energy matters. Ambrose and Immerman do discuss the Oppenheimer case but say nothing new about it. Blanche Wiesen Cook’s The Declassified Eisenhower: A Divided Legacy (New York, 1981) documents Eisenhower’s conviction that nuclear war was

unthinkable but says nothing about other atomic energy issues. An early “revisionist” view of Eisenhower that is still very useful, although silent about atomic energy issues, is in William L. O’Neill, Coming Apart: An Informal History of America in the 1960s (Chicago, 1971). Douglas Kinnard’s President Eisenhower and Strategy Management: A Study in Defense

Politics (Lexington, KY, 1977) contains a thoughtful analysis that aided discussions of the New Look and the role of nuclear weapons in national defense. Robert A. Divine’s Eisenhower and the Cold War (New York, 1981) is an excellent study, although limited to specific topics. Robert J. Donovan’s Eisenhower: The Inside Story (New York, 1956) is occasionally helpful but was written too close to events to have historical perspective.

ESSAY ON SOURCES

Two recent biographies of John Foster Dulles virtually ignore atomic

energy matters. Townsend Hoopes in The Devil and John Foster Dulles (Boston, 1973) briefly describes Dulles’s reprimand of Stassen and discusses Dulles’s views on the New Look and massive retaliation but is silent about the Atoms-for-Peace program and test-ban negotiations. Michael A. Guhin, John Foster Dulles: A Statesman and his Times (New York, 1972), notes that Dulles supported a test ban in 1958 and discusses his views on

the New Look and massive retaliation. Otherwise he, too, says nothing about atomic-energy-related matters. Dulles’s early views on what later came to be known as “massive retaliation” can be found in “A Policy of Boldness,” Life, May 19, 1952; his most complete discussion of the doctrine appears in “Policy for Security and Peace,” Foreign Affairs 32 (April 1954); and his eventual retreat from the doctrine and his recognition of the possibilities of defenses based on tactical nuclear weapons is in “Challenge

and Response in United States Policy,” Foreign Affairs 36 (October 1957). 669 ‘1 No complete short history of the Atomic Energy Commission exists.

The first two works in this series, Richard G. Hewlett and Oscar E. Anderson, Jr., The New World, 1939-1946, Volume I of A History of the United States Atomic Energy Commission (University Park, PA, 1962), and Richard G. Hewlett and Francis Duncan, Atomic Shield, 1947-1952, Volume II of A History of the United States Atomic Energy Commission (University Park, PA, 1969), discuss in detail the history of the Commission through the Truman Administration. The history of regulatory matters is treated in a separate series. The first volume of the official history of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Controlling the Atom: The Beginnings of Nuclear Regulation, 1946-1962, by George T. Mazuzan and J. Samuel Walker (Berkeley, CA, 1984), is a well-written, detailed account of the entire spectrum of nuclear regulation from reactors to radioisotopes and includes accounts of the controversies over fallout, the Price-Anderson Act, and the licensing of the Fermi fast breeder reactor. Richard G. Hewlett and Francis Duncan, Nuclear Navy, 1946—1962 (Chicago, 1974), includes a detailed description of the naval reactors program during the Eisenhower years. Although Corbin Allardice and Edward R. Trapnell wrote the Atomic Energy Commission (New York, 1974) for the Praeger series on federal agencies, their study lacks balance and fails to discuss many key issues and events. It does, however, give the lay reader a good basic view of the Commission and its functions. Of the three chairmen who led the Commission during the Eisenhower period, only Lewis L. Strauss has a biographer. Commissioned by the Strauss family, Richard Pfau’s No Sacrifice Too Great: The Life of Lewis L. Strauss (Charlottesville, VA, 1984) is well written and only occasionally

reflects the family’s partisanship. The best source for biographical details about Gordon Dean and an intimate view of the problems he faced as chair-

ESSAY ON SOURCES

man under both Truman and Eisenhower can be found in Roger M. Anders, ed., Forging the Atomic Shield: Excerpts from the Office Diary of Gordon E. Dean (Chapel Hill, NC, 1987). Many controversies engulfing the Commission are the subject of historical studies. The Oppenheimer case has spawned an extensive literature,

much of it polemical. Dramatists have seen in the security hearing rich material for a study of the man and his hubris. Of the Oppenheimer books the authors found John Major’s The Oppenheimer Hearing (New York, 1971) the most succinct and well balanced. Major is easily the best single-volume study of the Oppenheimer case. Philip M. Stern’s The Oppenheimer Case:

Security on Trial: (New York, 1969) is the most exhaustive study of the hearing, although it suffers from flaws in interpretation as does Charles P. Curtis, The Oppenheimer Case: The Trial of a Security System (New York,

1955). A penetrating examination of the advice Oppenheimer gave the 670 Commission on the hydrogen bomb can be found in Herbert F. York’s The Advisors: Oppenheimer, Teller, and the Superbomb (San Francisco, 1976). As a former director of the Livermore laboratory, York knew both Oppenheimer and Teller and has the technical knowledge to weigh their scientific advice. Thomas C. Reeves in The Life and Times of Joe McCarthy: A Biography (New York, 1982), the most scholarly study of McCarthy, notes that the senator had been quietly building a case against Oppenheimer but did not complete his work because of the Army-McCarthy hearings. Even more extensive than the Oppenheimer literature is that devoted to the test ban and disarmament. The single most exhaustive study of disarmament negotiations in the 1950s is Bernhard G. Bechhoefer, Postwar Negotiations for Arms Control (Washington, 1961). The best single-volume study of the Geneva test-ban negotiations can be found in Harold K. Jacobsen and Eric Stein, Diplomats, Scientists, and Politicians: The United States and the Nuclear Test Ban Negotiations (Ann Arbor, MI, 1966). Robert Gilpin in American Scientists and Nuclear Weapons Policy (Princeton, NJ, 1962) examines political differences among the scientists on test ban issues. Walt W. Rostow studies the Open Skies proposal in detail in Open Skies: Eisenhower’s Proposal of July 21, 1955 (Austin, TX, 1982), and he explores the impact of Stalin’s death on arms control policies of the Eisenhower Administration in Europe After Stalin: Eisenhower's Three Decisions of March 11, 1953 (Austin, TX, 1982). The Soviet view of disarmament and arms control is thoroughly discussed in Khrushchev and the Arms Race:

Soviet Interests in Arms Control and Disarmament, 1954-1964 (Cambridge, MA, 1966) by Lincoln P. Bloomfield, Walter C. Clemens, Jr., and Franklyn Griffiths. Also useful is Edward Crankshaw, ed., Khrushchev Remembers (Boston, 1974). An absorbing popular account of the American U-2 program and the abortive 1960 Paris summit conference can be found in Michael R. Beschloss, Mayday, the U-2 Affair: The Untold Story of the Greatest U.S.—U.S.S.R. Spy Scandal (New York, 1986). The literature of

ESSAY ON SOURCES

the proponents and opponents of the test ban is extensive, and an incomplete list includes Linus Pauling, No More War! (New York, 1958); Edward Teller with Allen Brown, The Legacy of Hiroshima (New York, 1962); Edward Teller and Albert L. Latter, Qur Nuclear Future: Facts, Dangers, and Opportunities (New York, 1958); Philip Noel-Baker, The Arms Race: A Programme for World Disarmament (New York, 1958); Earl H. Voss, Nuclear Ambush: The Test Ban Trap (Chicago, 1963); James J. Wadsworth, The

Price of Peace (New York, 1962); Norman Cousins, /n Place of Folly (New York, 1961); Seymour Melman, ed., Inspection for Disarmament (New York, 1958); Bertrand Russell, Common Sense and Nuclear War (New York, 1959) and Has Man a Future? (New York, 1962); Thomas C. Schel-

ling and Morton Halperin, Strategy and Arms Control (New York, 1961); Albert Schweitzer, Peace or Atomic War? (New York, 1958); Herbert F. York, Race to Oblivion: A Participant’s View of the Arms Race (New York,

1970); Henry A. Kissinger, “Nuclear Testing and the Problem of Peace,” 671 Foreign Affairs 37 (October 1958); Freeman J. Dyson, “The Future Development of Nuclear Weapons,” Foreign Affairs 38 (April 1960); Edward Teller and Albert Latter, “The Compelling Need for Nuclear Tests,” Life, kebruary 10, 1958; George Harris, “How Livermore Survived the Test Ban,” Fortune 65 (April 1960); and Hans A. Bethe, “The Case for Ending Nuclear Tests,” The Atlantic Monthly, August 1960. The best single-volume study of the fallout controversy is Robert A. Divine, Blowing on the Wind: The Nuclear Test Ban Debate, 1954—1960 (New York, 1978). In The Voyage of the Lucky Dragon (New York, 1958),

Ralph E. Lapp recounts the Lucky Dragon incident and the fate of the Japanese fishermen. Earle Reynolds’s The Forbidden Voyage (New York, 1961) is his account of his dramatic attempt to sail into the Pacific Proving Grounds during the 1958 nuclear weapon tests. In Radiation: What It Is and How It Affects You (New York, 1957), Jack Schubert and Ralph E. Lapp present for lay readers a summary of the hazards of radiation. Spencer

R. Weart’s Nuclear Fear: A History of Images (Cambridge, MA, 1988) contains an excellent and penetrating analysis of the popular perceptions of fallout, weapon testing, and the peaceful atom during the Kisenhower years. Arnold Kramish’s The Peaceful Atom in Foreign Policy (New York, 1963) is one of the few secondary works on Atoms-for-Peace programs. A series of recent studies of Atoms for Peace can be found in Joseph E. Pilat,

Robert E. Pendley, and Charles K. Ebinger, eds., Atoms-for-Peace: An Analysis After Thirty Years (Boulder, CO, 1985). The most useful essays are James R. Schlesinger, “Atoms for Peace Revisited,” Robert R. Bowie, “Eisenhower, Atomic Weapons, and Atoms for Peace,” Richard G. Hewlett, “From Proposal to Program,” and Jack M. Holl, “The Peaceful Atom:

Lore and Myth.” Bernhard G. Bechhoefer, “Negotiating the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency,” /nternational Organization 13

ESSAY ON SOURCES

(1959), is especially valuable for the origins of the international agency. Irvin C. Bupp’s and Jean-Claude Derian’s Light Water: How the Nuclear Dream Dissolved (New York, 1978) contains an excellent analysis of Eisenhower’s Atoms-for-Peace proposal and of the Eisenhower Administration’s policy for power reactor development. The literature of nuclear strategy is extensive and must begin with Bernard Brodie, Strategy in the Missile Age (Princeton, 1959), Henry A.

Kissinger, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy (New York, 1957), and Herman Kahn, On Thermonuclear War (Princeton, 1960) and Thinking About the Unthinkable (New York, 1962). Two recent excellent studies of nuclear strategy debates are Fred Kaplan, The Wizards of Armageddon (New York, 1983), and Lawrence Freedman, The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy (New York, 1983). Other valuable examinations of nuclear strategy or doctrines of limited war are Bernard Brodie, The Atomic Bomb and 672 American Security (New Haven, CT, 1945), Basil Liddell Hart, Defense of the West (New York, 1950), William Kaufman, ed., Military Policy and National Security (Princeton, NJ, 1956), and Robert E. Osgood, Limited War: The Challenge to American Security (Chicago, 1957).

There is a growing literature on the history of scientific developments during the decade. Joan Lisa Bromberg’s Fusion: Science, Politics, and the Invention of a New Energy Source (Cambridge, MA, 1982) is the definitive work on this program and a model for histories of specific governmental programs. M. Stanley Livingston has written an account of particle accelerator development in Particle Accelerators: A Brief History (Cam-

bridge, MA, 1969) and has edited accounts of their evolution in The Development of High Energy Accelerators (New York, 1966). The best source for a fundamental understanding of how particle accelerators work is Robert R. Wilson and Raphael Littauer, Accelerators, Machines of Nuclear Physics (New York, 1960). Leonard Greenbaum’s A Special Interest: The Atomic Energy Commission, Argonne National Laboratory and the Midwestern Universities (Ann Arbor, MI, 1971) and Daniel S. Greenberg’s The Politics of Pure Science (New York, 1967) examine the controversies surrounding the

Midwest Universities Research Association and its proposed particle accelerators from single perspectives. An excellent account of Herman Muller’s work and times can be found in Elof Axel Carlson, Genes, Radiation and Society: The Life and Work of H. J. Muller (Ithaca, NY, 1981).

Two studies are especially valuable in the literature of atomic energy. Aaron Wildavsky’s Dixon-Yates: A Study in Power Politics (New Ha-

ven, CT, 1962) contains a thorough and well-researched account of the battle over the Dixon-Yates contract and its impact on the 1954 Atomic Energy Act. Harold P. Green and Alan Rosenthal in Government of the Atom: The Integration of Powers (New York, 1963) present the best published account of the role of the Joint Committee during its early years.

ESSAY ON SOURCES

INTERVIEWS

The authors supplemented their documentary research with oral interviews

of individuals who participated in the events described in the text. Although the extraordinary richness of the documentary evidence provided more than enough detail, often from several perspectives, the oral interviews also provided fresh insights, confirmed or refined interpretations

based on documentary sources, and provided vivid detail unavailable elsewhere. Former President Eisenhower and most of his immediate staff associated with atomic energy matters had died before research for this volume

was completed, but the authors did receive valuable insights on White House deliberations from Andrew J. Goodpaster. Among the men who served on the Atomic Energy Commission dur-

ing the Eisenhower Administration, only Lewis L. Strauss, Henry D. 673 Smyth, John A. McCone, John F. Floberg, and Eugene M. Zuckert were available for interviews. Each of them provided essential information for this volume. Several key members of the Commission’s staff also granted the au-

thors interviews or related their recollections informally. These included Frank P. Baranowski, Edward J. Bloch, Howard C. Brown, Jr., W. Kenneth Davis, McKay Donkin, Edward R. Gardner, Dwight A. Ink, Alvin R. Luedecke, Woodford B. McCool, John L. McGruder, A. Bruce Mercer, Kenneth D. Nichols, Clarence C. Ohlke, Robert D. O’Niell, Charles A. Perry,

Frank K. Pittman, Hyman G. Rickover, Louis H. Roddis, Jr., Roy B. Snapp, Alfred D. Starbird, Edward R. Trapnell, and Richard A. Willitt. For a better understanding of the issues involved in weapon testing and the fallout controversy the authors interviewed Robert F. Bacher, Norris Bradbury, Richard Bice, Warren Donaldson, Neal O. Hines, Hal L. Hollister, Lewis Hopkins, Donald Kerr, William E. Ogle, Shields Warren, John C. Whitnah, and Herbert F. York. Discussions of Atoms-for-Peace programs and the 1954 Atomic Energy Act were enhanced by Shelby Brewer, Robert R. Bowie, W. Sterling Cole, Philip J. Farley, Chet Holifield, John A. Hall, George Norris, Jr., and Gerard C. Smith. For a better appreciation of progress in nuclear science during the decade, the authors turned to Glenn T. Seaborg and Gerald F. Tape. Perhaps the single most controversial act of the Commission during the 1950s was the removal of J. Robert Oppenheimer’s security clearance. Not only did the Oppenheimer case lend itself to greater clarity through oral history, but the authors also had the good fortune to find many key figures still active. For a better grasp of the case, they interviewed Luis W. Alvarez, Charles Bates, Hans A. Bethe, William L. Borden, Frank Cotter,

ESSAY ON SOURCES

Harold P. Green, W. Lee Hancock, J. Kenneth Mansfield, Kenneth D. Nichols, Kenneth S. Pitzer, James Reston, Roger Robb, Roy B. Snapp, Henry D. Smyth, Edward R. Trapnell, Edward Teller, John A. Walker, John A. Wheeler, and Eugene M. Zuckert.

CONCLUDING NOTE

The wealth, number, and variety of sources discussed in this essay should amply demonstrate the vastness of sources with which the historian of the recent past is confronted. As an indication of the volume of collections, Dwight D. Eisenhower’s White House Central files occupy 3,241 linear feet and the Atomic Energy Commission’s secretariat files total nearly 500 cubic feet. These were the two collections of greatest value to this volume,

674 yet the other collections that the authors had to examine amounted to several hundred additional linear feet. The sheer size of documentary collections presented the authors with the problem of locating and selecting pertinent documents from among a vast universe of modern public records. As the Eisenhower years recede further into the past, increasing numbers of historians will face the same problem of reducing oceans of potentially pertinent data to islands of directly pertinent facts that can be analyzed. The methodology historians use for solving this problem will shape topics for research and influence conclusions drawn from that research. As this series demonstrates, the authors have found team research and writing one method for digesting and analyzing large volumes of public documents. In the face of the explosion of post-World War II public re-

cords, the lone historian diligently making files of note cards seems as obsolete as the lone inventor tinkering in his basement. [ncreasingly it seems that sound professional history may become the product of teamwork, as has sound monograph production in other professions.

INDEX

Acheson, Dean G., 42, 212 Amster, Warren, 454 Adams, Sherman, 89, 249, 362 Anderson, Clinton P.: on principal officer is-

Adenauer, Konrad, 354—55 sue, 124; on JCAE bill, 138; on conference Advisory committee on biology and medicine. committee, 140-42; JCAE chairman, 202; See Biology and medicine, Advisory Com- Dixon- Yates, 248; Nevada Test Site, 289;

mittee on EURATOM, 322; private vs. public power,

Agreements for cooperation: in JCAE bill, 327; power demonstration projects, 342, 122; bilaterals, 227, 235-37; EURATOM 409-10; on Gore-Holifield bill, 344-45; agreement, 491—93. See also Bilateral on “clean bomb statement,” 347; 1956

agreements election, 352, 367; demands reactor safety

Aircraft carrier reactors, 521 report, 353; questions Fermi reactor safety, Aircraft reactors, 14, 25, 28, 416, 518 308; Weapons Effects Handbook, 376;

Air Force, U.S., 170, 174, 188-89 “clean bomb,” 398; Senate leadership, Alert Operation, 349, 451-52 403; Section 202 hearings, 407; on nuclear Allardice, Corbin: on Oppenheimer hearing, power, 409; reactor development program, 86; on legislation, 120-21; on industrial 427; on Strauss’s reappointment, 427; participation, 125-26; on compulsory |i- U.S./EURATOM agreement, 444—45,

censing, 142 492; opposes military bilateral, 467; sup-

Allary, Jean, 215 ports test ban, 474; opinion of McCone, Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, 527 490-91, 504; high-energy physics, 525 Allison, John M., 177 Anderson, Dillon, 284—85 Alsop, Stewart and Joseph, 84, 88, 279 Anderson, Robert B., 224, 275 Alternating-gradient synchrotron, 258-60, Annie test, 146—50, 153

922 Argonaut reactor, 447

Alvarez, Luis W.: in Oppenheimer investiga- | Argonne Cancer Research Hospital, 263 tion, 93, 95-97; builds first linear acceler- | Argonne National Laboratory: AEC labora-

ator, 523 tory, 8; designs submarine reactor, 186; re-

Amarillo, TX, plant, 7, 19 actor development, 190, 191, 195-96; in American Assembly, 415-17 o-year reactor program, 195-96; as reAmerican Car and Foundry Company, 504 gional laboratory, 253-55; high-energy

American Federation of Labor, 358 physics, 259-60; fallout studies, 282; sciAmerican Gas and Electric Service Corpora- entists support Stevenson, 368; 1958 Ge-

tion, 193 neva conference, 447; designs zero-

American Legion, 433 gradient synchrotron, 522 American Physical Society, 390 Argus test, 483

American Public Power Association, 27 Armand, Louis, 404

Ames Laboratory, 256 Armed Forces Special Weapons Project, 149—

AMF Atomics, 414 90, 273

INDEX

Armed Services Committee, Senate, 346 394, 405—6; assists McKinney panel, 328;

Arms race, 334~—35, 375 reports fallout data, 328-29; welcomes

Army, U.S.: at Upshot-Knothole, 144—45, 150; NAS report, 341; on Gavin report, 346; at Castle, 169-70; nuclear power reactors, breeder reactor safety, 353; domestic and

428 international reactor policy, 359; Stassen’s

Army reactors, 428, 519-20 disarmament plan, 361; safety of testing, Arneson, R. Gordon, 220 368—69; consequences of nuclear war, Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, 175, 264 368—69; on test ban, 382—83, 388-89, Atomic Energy Act of 1946: proposed changes 391-92, 395; “clean bomb” initiative, for private power, 27; amendment proposed, 398-402; on federal subsidy of nuclear 32; exceptional provisions, 113; patent pro- power, 407—8; new faces, 408—9; power

visions, 115; restrictions on information, reactor program, 410, 416-17, 424-26; 116—19; amendment of Section 10, 118—19 loss of status, 429; Brussels task force, Atomic Energy Act of 1954: AEC draft bills, 431-32; EURATOM treaty, 432; foreign 119-20; bills reviewed by JCAE, 120-22; uranium purchase, 432; supports [AEA, information control, 122; Section 123, 122; 435-38; redefining Atoms for Peace, principal officer issue, 122—25; industrial 438-39; U.S./EURATOM joint program, development, 125—28; Cole-Hickenlooper 440; EURATOM safeguards, 440-42,

676 bill, 133—36; Section 124 added, 134; con- 443—44; 1958 Geneva conference, 445—

gressional debates, 136—42; significance 46; criticized on fallout, 454—55; acceler-

of, 142; Section 202 hearings, 203-5; ates weapon testing, 456; Rainier report, Atoms for Peace, 225-26; EURATOM co- 474; studies alternatives to test ban, 476— operation, 322; IAEA statute, 434—35; 77; new reactor plan, 495-97, 499, 510—

weapon data amendment, 537-38 12; last-ditch effort for continued testing, Atomic Energy Commission, U.S.: budget 042-44 summary, 6; organization in 1952, 9; rela- Atomic Industrial Forum, 27, 414, 416, 448,

tions with White House, 17; Eisenhower 308

impact, 17—21; 1954 budget, 18-19; sub- Atomics International, 519 mits reactor statement, 23; personnel secu- —_ Atoms for Peace: role of power reactors, 197—

rity, 73; effect of Oppenheimer case, 111; 99; linked to disarmament, 21]—13; interearly immunity from politics, 113; drafts preting the Eisenhower proposal, 213-17; amendments to act, 114—15, 119; attitude policy, 215—17; working group, 216-17; toward Dixon- Yates, 130—32; report on test negotiations, 217—19; proposal, 219-25; hazards, 150—51; Upshot-Knothole, 155— linked to weapon test moratorium, 222; 96; approves continental tests, 159; plans with or without the Soviets, 225—28; linked for Castle, 164—66; authorizes additional to military atom, 237; compared to Open lithium plant, 166; briefed on Bravo, 182; Skies, 301; promotion and control, 306—7; power reactor policy, 189-90; 5-year reac- Europe-oriented policy, 306; risks, 317— tor program, 192, 195-96; eliminates Nu- 20; failure as arms control measure, 332: clear Power Group, 196; cautious on power international politics, 354—58; in domestic reactor abroad, 199; regulatory program, politics, 359—61; negotiations and treaty 200; approves power demonstration reactor making, 430; U.S. policy redefined, 438— program, 200—202; evaluates proposals, 39; 1957 policy obsolete, 438-39 205—8; weapon test moratorium, 224; Atoms-for-Peace speech: Jackson drafts, 66— implements NSC 5431/1, 228; priority to 67; discussed with Commission, 75; effects

foreign power reactor programs, 237; on atomic energy act, 120; public reaction, Eisenhower and Atoms for Peace, 238—39; 209—11; congressional reaction, 210

small power reactors, 245—46; Dixon- Australia, 229, 230, 308 Yates, 247—49; basic research, 252—57; high-energy physics, 258-60; biology and Babcock and Wilcox Company, 506—7

medicine program, 262—64; Hermann J. Bacher, Robert F., 538-39, 556 Muller, 267-68; briefs State Department Bainbridge, DLGN, 521 on fallout, 278—79; fallout studies, 282, Baker, William R., 525 283-85, 289, 292-95; Open Skies, 300, Baruch, Bernard M., 211 301; opposes Stassen’s disarmament plan, Bates, Charles, 52, 63, 81, 86, 268 302; prepares for safeguards conference, Beam, Jacob D., 220, 222 311, 316, 318—21; evaluates Atoms for Bechhoefer, Bernard G., 360 Peace, 319-20; EURATOM, 321-25, Bechtel Corporation, 193

INDEX

Belgian Congo ore, 159-60, 432 issue, 295; American conscience, 307; Belgium, 218, 227, 240, 432, 447 fallout evaluated, 329—30 Berkeley Laboratory. See Radiation Labora- Brazil, 245

tory, Berkeley Breeder reactors, 21, 190, 352, 353, 505, 513

Berkner, Lloyd V., 549, 553-54 Bricker, John W.: proposes Section 123 amend-

Berlin conference, 1954, 219 ment, 133—34, 137; on conference commit-

Bermuda conference, 71 tee, 140—42; role on JCAE, 202; on clean

Bethe, Hans A.: background, 36; in Crouch bomb development, 399-400; challenge to incident, 92; supports Oppenheimer, 93, IAEA, 433; reservations to IAEA statute, 111; heads technical panel, 471; testifies on 434~—35 disarmament, 475; completes technical re- Bridges, Styles, 339 port, 477-78; adviser to Geneva delega- British Medical Council, 341

tion, 539 Brodie, Bernard, 454

Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory, 33, 186, 256, Broglie, Louis de, 283

420, 422—23, 493-95 Brookhaven National Laboratory, 8, 253-54,

Bevatron, 257, 522 297-58, 368, 522

Bhabha, Homi J., 235 Brooks, Harvey, 498 Bidault, George, 219 Browder, Felix, 51

Bikini Islands, 165, 169—72, 271, 345 Brown, Harold, 368, 539 677

Bilateral agreements: in JCAE bill, 122, 133- Brown, Harrison, 390 34, 227, 235-37; in Europe, 355-57, 405; Brownell, Herbert M., Jr., 68, 69~—70, 75 promote Atoms for Peace, 360; Strauss and Brues, Austin, 455, 473

Dulles, 430-31; scope, 439 Brussels conference, 355—56, 404—5, 431—32

340-41, 456 290

“Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation,” Bugher, John C., 155, 157, 278, 280-81, 287,

Biology and medicine, 262—64 Bulganin, Nikolai, 299-300, 335, 364, 371Biology and medicine, advisory committee on, 73, 468, 472

158—59, 377-80, 450, 456 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 287, 367, 473 Biology and medicine, division of, 330 Bundy, McGeorge, 42—43

Biomedical research, 8 Bureau of Budget (BOB), 119, 426-29

Bohlen, Charles E., 214 Burke, Arleigh A., 520 Bohm, David, 98—99 Burlington, 1A, plant, 7, 19

Boiling-water reactor, 191-92, 195, 513 Burrows, Don S., 200

Borax experiments, 192 Bush, Vannevar, 42, 49, 189, 252-53, 435 Borden, William L.: fears Soviet development, = Business Week, 435 39-36; questions H-bomb development,

37; orders H-bomb chronology, 37; seeks Caccia, Sir Harold T., 383, 458 lost document, 38; gives copy to AEC, Calder Hall reactor, 250, 327, 357-58 38-39; loses influence, 40—41; joins California, University of, at Los Angeles, 256,

Strauss, 45; investigates Oppenheimer, 266

46—47; studies Oppenheimer file, 50-5], California Institute of Technology, 367 62; drafts Oppenheimer letter, 67—68; re- California Research and Development Comaction to letter, 68—71; interviewed on Op- pany, 190

penheimer, 86—87 Campbell, Joseph, 31, 75, 106, 107, 133,

Bowie, Robert R., 224, 247 241, 358

Boyer, Marion W., 38, 64, 116, 498 Canada: on procurement, 159-60, 432; Bradbury, Norris E.: on weapon test com- Atoms-for-Peace negotiations, 218, 229, mittee, 157; briefs GAC, 180; weapon 230; safeguards conference, 312, 380 test moratorium, 224; concerned about Candor operation: origins, 42—44; approved future of Los Alamos, 256; questions test by NSC panel, 49; favored by Eisenhower, moratorium, 276; on underground tests, 91-52, 564; presidential speech, 53; gains 487-88; briefs Eisenhower on Hardtack, support, 55—56; plan collapses, 60

544. _ Cannon, Clarence, 409

Bravo shot: decision to fire, 173; high radia- Castle test series: planning, 164—66; early tion levels, 173—74; evacuation of islands, preparation, 168—72; fallout precautions, 174-75; Lucky Dragon incident, 175—76; 170-71; Bravo shot, 172—75; Bravo fall-

significance of, 223, 271—74; fallout, out, 174—77; tests after Bravo, 178-79; 276-83; links fallout to test moratorium expansion of exclusion area, 178; long-

INDEX

Castle test series (continued ) Cockcroft, Sir John, 243, 539 range implications, 178—82; radiation Cohen, Benjamin V., 212

effects, 263; evaluating Bravo shot, Cohn, Roy, 68 271—74; testing hazards, 330 Cole, W. Sterling: JCAE chairman, 32, 39; on

Cedar City, UT, 154, 155 Joe 4, 58; proposes new atomic energy act,

Cesium-137, 556 61-62; on principal officer issue, 124; on

Chamberlin, Owen, 259 patents, 126; introduces JCAE bill, 134; Chariot project, 529 reversed on patent amendment, 135—36; Charpie, Robert A., 234 leads House debate, 139; on conference

Cherokee shot, 345 committee, 140—42; seeks reactor pro-

Cherwell, Lord, 71, 214, 218, 232, 276 gram, 185—86; supports PWR, 192; role on Chevalier, Haakon, 94—98, 103-—4 JCAE, 202; questions power demonstration Chicago, University of, 255, 256 program, 204; questions AEC authority on

Childs, Marquis, 63 research and development, 206; Bravo China, People’s Republic of, 219, 302 shot, 223; appoints Wedemeyer panel,

Christmas Island, 390—91 277; amends Gore-Holifield bill, 344-45; Chugach, AK, reactor, 504 need for testing, 400; recruited for IAEA Churchill, Winston: at Bermuda conference, director general, 437; EURATOM safe71; reaction to Atoms for Peace, 213-14; guards, 441, 442—44; supports testing, 451

678 contribution to Atoms-for-Peace speech, Cole-Hickenlooper bill. See Atomic Energy 214; Atoms-for-Peace negotiations, 218; Act of 1954 Bravo shot, 223; reaction to Bravo shot, Colombo Plan, 439 276; fallout, 281; Soviet proposal to end Colorado plateau, 160

testing, 285 Columbia University, 368

Cisler, Walker L.: heads industrial study Combustion Engineering, 423 group, 27; private financing of nuclear Committee for Non-Violent Action Against power, 29; proposes industrial participa- Testing, 483-85 tion, 204; disarmament task force, 296; Commoner, Barry, 391 spokesman for nuclear power, 352-54 Common Market, 355, 356

City College of New York, 368 Commonwealth Edison Company, 193, 251 Civil defense, 147-49, 280, 287-91, 465-66 Community of Six, 354 Civilian power: status in 1952, 8; Dean pro- Conant, James B., 189, 356 posal, 21; JCAE report, 22—23; issues de- Condon, Edward U., 99, 391 fined, 183—84,; disseminating information, Congress of Industrial Organizations, 27, 358

184—85; early reactor experiments, 189; Considine, William A., 103 PWR project announced, 194—95; power Consumer Public Power District, 205, 246,

demonstration reactor program, 200-202; 201, 358, 359 and foreign policy, 239-40; Democrats’ ini- Continental tests, 150—52, 157-59 tiatives, 341—44; 1956 elections, 35]; at Controlled fusion research, 525-28, 530—

home and abroad, 358—59; alternative to 32, 535 Middle Eastern oil, 404; federal subsidy, Cook, Richard W., 376, 431, 440—41, 442,

407-8; congressional initiative, 409-10; 492-93

fading prospects, 1957, 410-14; experi- Corsbie, Robert L., 276 mental reactors, 410—12; economic realities, | Cosmotron, 254, 257, 522 414—15; ten-year reactor program, 417-18; Cotter, Francis P., 46, 50, 78, 142 industry leaders, 418; AEC reactor develop- Council on Foreign Relations, 44 ment conferences, 418—19; foreign, 425; Cousins, Norman, 390, 451 large European plants, 432; McCone ap- Couve de Murville, Maurice, 547 praises program, 494—95; JCAE reactor Crouch, Paul, 92

panel appointed, 495-97; JCAE reactor Curie, Marie, 331 panel report, 500; McCone program, 501-2; — Cutler, Robert: Strauss and Oppenheimer, 52;

AEC long-range plan, 508-14 sees Mike film, 54; national security ad-

Clapp, Gordon R., 129, 130 viser, 62; and Oppenheimer case, 69—70; Clarkson, Percy W., 164, 169-73, 181 Atoms-for-Peace plan, 227; 1956 election,

Clay, Lucius D., 18 369; reviews disarmament proposal, 387; “Clean bombs,” 346—48, 376, 398-402 attends Hardtack briefing, 456; appoints

Climax test, 156 Bethe panel, 472 Climax Uranium Company, 160 Cyclotron, 254.

INDEX

Czechoslovakia, 312 132-33; in Senate debate, 136—38; authorized by Congress, 140; attacked by Demo-

Dana, IN, plant, 162, 167 crats, 202; political repercussions, 247—

Davidson, William Lee, 23 49; Strauss liability, 327 Davis, W. Kenneth: planning for Geneva, Doan, Richard L., 243

1955, 234; director, reactor development, Dodge, Joseph M., 18, 19, 129-30, 166 243; nuclear merchant ship, 244; power Dodson, Richard W., 312 demonstration program, 251; safeguards Doolittle, James H., 296 conference, 312, 315; Fermi reactor, 352; Dow Chemical Company, 27 prospects for nuclear power, 410—15; ten- Dresden, IL, reactor, 25] year reactor development program, 418; Du Pont, E. 1., de Nemours & Company, 3,

Vance proposal on reactor development, 114

425; resigns, 493 Dual-purpose reactors, 2, 8, 126, 357, 425

Davis, William H., 116—17 Dulles, Allen W., 42, 275, 302, 387, 556 Dean, Gordon E.: memo to Eisenhower, 3; Dulles, John Foster: appointed Secretary of background, 5—6; Eisenhower's NY brief- State, 17; advises on Atoms-for-Peace ing, 9-14, 18—21; briefs NSC, 19-20; speech, 71; favors power reactors abroad, reaction to Strauss’s appointment, 21, 30— 199; Atoms-for-Peace policy, 215— 16;

31; proposes nuclear power program, 21; Atoms-for-Peace negotiations, 217-18; 679

develops reactor program, 24—25, 28; 1954 Berlin conference, 219; Molotov and briefs NSC on power program, 29—30; on Atoms for Peace, 221-22; weapon test H-bomb development, 36; on lost docu- moratorium, 1954, 223, 224; Atoms-forment, 39; undercuts Borden, 40—41; favors Peace proposal, 226; at UN, 228, 232, disarmament study, 44; extends Oppen- 234; Atoms-for-Peace negotiations, 23]; heimer consultantship, 52; sees Mike film, international control of nuclear energy, 04; discusses Candor, 55; on patents, 116; 238; “massive retaliation,” 272; test moraon Upshot-Knothole, 155; raises fallout torium, 274—75; opposes fallout statement, question, 156; Wedemeyer panel, 277 283, 286; UN fallout studies, 293; on dis-

Decoupling, 542—43, 553-54 armament plans, 298; on Soviet motives, Defense, Department of, 9, 57, 293-94, 428, 299; compares Open Skies to Atoms for

457, 482—83 Peace, 301; Stassen’s disarmament plan,

de Gaulle, Charles, 440, 443 303; EURATOM priority, 320-24; assessDellinger, David, 484—85 ment of nuclear arms, 331—33; reevaluates Democratic campaign, 1956, 343, 359, 364— “massive retaliation,” 332; evaluates lim-

65, 434. ited testing, 334; on Gavin report, 346; on

Demonstration power plants, 341-44 EURATOM negotiations, 355, 356-57;

Desert Rock V, 150 disarmament adviser, 362; seeks basis for Detroit Edison Company, 27, 205, 251, 352 test ban talks, 363; H-bomb history, 370;

Dewey, Thomas E., 296 Bulganin letter, 371—72; on Stassen’s hia-

Dickey, John S., 42 bilities, 381, 382; replaces Strauss and

Dietrich, Joseph R., 192 Stassen, 384; principal disarmament adDillon, C. Douglas, 440, 492, 553 viser, 384; proliferation, 386; criticizes Dirksen, Everett M., 89 Stassen, 387; reviews Stassen’s disarmaDisarmament: State Dept. panel, 42-44; 1953 ment proposal, 387, 392, 393, 395-96; diversion plan, 62, 65—66; task forces, supports limited test moratorium, 393-94; 296; inspection and verification, 303; Com- NATO and U.S. disarmament policy, 396— mission rejects, 333; Stassen plan, 361-64; 97; assures Macmillan and Adenauer, 397;

1956 debate, 366; and test ban, 375-76; hears Eisenhower’s frustration on test ban, negotiations, 380—402; November 1956 401; West German bilateral, 405; receives policy, 382—83; Stassen plan debated, Three Wise Men, 405; EURATOM and Eu392—94; impact on Hardtack, 456—57; ropean stability, 440; urges Strauss to sup1957 London conference, 458-59; Hum- port EURATOM, 443; pessimistic about phrey subcommittee hearings, 473-76; London conference, 458—59; addresses Dulles formulates U.S. policy, 481—82; UN on disarmament, 462-63; rejects

Eisenhower farewell, 562—63 Stassen overtures, 463; rejects Gaither re-

Dixon, Edgar H., 129 port, 465—66; discusses NATO, 466-68; Dixon- Yates contract: AEC views on, 130—32; urges Stassen to resign, 469; ambivalent on

original terms, 130-31; JCAE reaction, disarmament, 470; suggests unilateral test

INDEX

Dulles, John Foster (continued ) Bermuda conference, 214; Atoms-for-Peace suspension, 478; questions Bethe panel re- policy, 215, 218; Soviet opposition to Atoms port, 478—79; dismisses Khrushchev pro- for Peace, 225-26; Shippingport dedicaposal, 479; heads committee of principals, tion, 227—28; diversion proposal, 232; ex-

480; formulates new disarmament policy, pectations for Atoms for Peace, 238-39; 481-82; favors step-wise test cessation, nuclear power, 240; nominates Libby and 486; saves weapon data exchange amend- von Neumann, 241; N.S. Savannah, 244; ment, 538; briefs Geneva delegation, 539; Penn State speech, 245, 308; small power rejects Libby-Teller proposal, 544; accepts reactors, 245; second invitation to indusMacmillan’s test ban proposal, 551—52; re- try, 246-47; Dixon-Yates, 247-49; test

jects atmospheric test ban, 553 moratorium, 275; meets with Churchill,

Dunham, Charles L., 330 276; disappointed at failure of test morato-

Dunning, Gordon M., 284, 329 rium, 276; fallout statement, 284, 285-86; Duquesne Light Company, 197, 420 names Stassen disarmament adviser, 296;

Durham, Car! T., 34, 140, 142, 424, 426—27, supports disarmament, 297; upset with JCS

467 concerning disarmament, 298; Open Skies at Geneva Conference, 299-300; 1955

Eaton, Cyrus, 451 heart attack, 301; operates nuclear power 680 Ecker, Allan B., 91 reactor, 305; at Geneva, 306; EURATOM

Eden, Anthony, 218-19, 226, 275, 276, 333- priority, 320; allocates material for peace-

34, 383 ful uses, 324; nuclear disarmament, 333;

Effects of Nuclear Weapons, The, 452-53 frustration with arms race, 334—35; deci-

Einstein, Albert, Lil sion to run for second term, 336; limits

Eisenbud, Mermill, 176, 376—77, 455 to thermonuclear weapons, 338; attacks Eisenhower, Dwight D.: briefed in Augusta, Stevenson’s H-bomb testing proposal, 339; 1—5; urges secrecy, 3—4, 13-14; briefed desires to counter Gavin report, 346; on by Commissioners, 13—15; opposes aircraft 1956 vice-presidential candidate, 348—49; reactors, 14; confidence in J. Edgar Hoover, stands by Stassen, 349; 1956 election, 351—15; reactions to briefing, 15— 16; impact on 94; objectives of Atoms for Peace, 360; AEC program, 18—21; appoints Strauss as appoints disarmament advisers, 362—63;

special assistant, 21; doubts industrial par- determined to escape disarmament imticipation, 24; supports civilian power, 33; passe, 363—64; on thermonuclear testing,

inaugural address, 34; lost document, 365; disarmament and 1956 election, 39—40; criticizes JCAE, 39; denies Rosen- 365—66; nuclear issues, 1956 election, berg clemency, 40; receives H-bomb chro- 370; reaction to Bulganin election letter, nology, 41; sees implications of H-bomb, 1956, 372—73; determined to end arms 41; receives State Department report, 42; race, 375; determined to stop testing, 380; impressed by disarmament study, 43-44; approves Stassen’s disarmament plan, 380; favors Candor, 44, 52; rejects Candor assigns Stassen to State Department, 381— speech, 53; sees Mike film, 54; briefed on 82; approves November 1956 disarmament

Joe 4, 58; renewed interest in Candor, plan, 382; meets Macmillan in Bermuda, 09-62; statement on Joe 4, 61; proposes 383; questions Plumbbob series, 383; comdiversion plan, 62; considers diversion mitment to disarmament, 384; testing and plan, 65; reviews Atoms-for-Peace speech, basic research, 387; reviews progress on

66—67; discusses McCarthy charges, disarmament negotiations, 392—93, 396; 69; shocked by Borden letter, 69; orders buoyed up with test ban prospects, 398; “blank wall,” 69; Atoms-for-Peace speech, meets with Lawrence, Teller, and Mills, 71-72, 209—11; briefed on Oppenheimer 400; on clean weapons, 401—2; commitcase, 78; discusses McCarthy, 89; accepts ment to test ban shaken, 401; follows Oppenheimer board findings, 104—5; influ- EURATOM negotiations, 404; supports ences bills on atomic energy act, 120; 1m- American Assembly, 415; funding reactor pact on principal officer issue, 124—25; development, 428; EURATOM as grand supports Dixon- Yates, 128-29; supports design for Europe, 430; follows Atoms-forCole-Hickenlooper bill, 138; supports civil Peace negotiations, 430; and Three Wise defense, 149; authorizes additional weapon Men, 430-31; State of the Union and test, 156; approves new weapon require- IAEA, 433; creation of IAEA, 434, 436, ments, 168; refuses comment on Bravo, 437; considers EURATOM agreement, 177; rejects power reactors abroad, 199; 442, 444; 1958 Geneva conference, 445—

INDEX

46; comments on test ban, 45]; authorizes to IAEA, 432-33, 436-37; EURATOM Hardtack, phase {, 456—57; frustrated with priorities, 439-40; U.S./EURATOM agreeLondon conference, 458; seeks test ban, ment, 444—45; skeptical of USSR on test 458~60; announces proposal for morato- ban, 458; rejects plant construction, 504—

rium, 460; addresses nation on Sputnik, 3, opposes gas-cooled reactor, 505 464; rejects Gaither report, 465—66; pro- Electric Boat Company, 520-21 poses military bilateral, 466—67; suffers Electron synchrotron, 522 stroke, 467; shows flexibility on disarma- Elizabeth H, Queen, 357 ment, 469; loses confidence in Stassen, Elks River, MN, plant, 414 469~70; questions Stassen proposals, 470— —_ Elliott, Richard G., 157 71; asks Soviets to join technical study, 472; — Eltenton, George C., 95-97

considers response to Soviet test suspen- Emelyanov, Vasily S.: on IAEA director gension, 478; discusses Bethe panel report, eral, 437; directs scientific exchanges for 478~—79; replies to Khrushchev proposal, USSR, 531-34; negotiates agreement with 479; announces interest in test ban, 479; McCone, 534; receives U.S. scientists, 535; appoints committee of principals, 480; pro- final meeting with McCone, 536 poses technical studies to Khrushchev, Enewetak Proving Ground: status in 1952, 3; 482; approves Argus and Hardtack II, 483, plans for Castle, 164—65; base for Castle,

048; appoints Strauss special adviser, 486; 169; destruction of Bravo shot, 174; Hard- 681 proposes immediate technical conference, tack I planned, 483 486; cautious about underground testing, English, Spofford G., 474 488; urges Savannah project, 506; ques- Enriched uranium, 371, 431 tions aircraft reactor project, 517—18; ac- Enterprise, CVAN, 521 cepts linear accelerator project, 524—25; Etzel, Franz, 404 favors scientific cooperation with USSR, EURATOM: safeguards and the international 033; meets Emelyanov, 534; proposes test- agency, 305ff; preliminary plans, 308; ban conference of experts, 537; appoints top U.S. priority, 320-25; and NATO, 321; Fisk to head Geneva delegation, 538; signs negotiations, 354—57; and international weapon data amendment, 538; discusses politics, 354-59; IAEA, 371; and Mideast test moratorium, 544—45; announces mora- crisis, 404—5; domestic implications, torium, 546—47; accepts Macmillan test 405-7; power plants, 406; reactor develban proposal, 551—52; plans for Geneva opment projects, 425; Brussels task force, talks, 554; sees atmospheric test ban inevi- 431-32; enriched uranium, 43]; treaty, table, 555; criticizes Soviet delegation in 432; Eisenhower Administration priorities, Geneva, 558; announces expiration date for 439-40; full-cycle guarantees, 440; inconmoratorium, 558; final efforts on test ban, sistent with IAEA, 440; Treaty of Rome, 960-61; farewell address, 562; the great 440; U.S./EURATOM joint program, 440; nuclear debate, 562—66; on disarmament, safeguards, 440—42; memorandum on safe963; on technological revolution, 563; fears guards, 443-44; Congress approves U.S./ hydrogen bomb, 563-64; criticizes JCAE, EURATOM agreement, 444—45; indepen963; meets with Kennedy, 563; Operation dent safeguards, 444; financial agreements, Candor, 564; peaceful and military atom, 445; authorization bill passes, 491-92;

064 changing outlook for nuclear power, 509—

Eisenhower, Milton, 372 10; and the great debate, 565

Eisenhower Administration: pushes AEC bill European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN),

in House, 139; cuts back on aircraft reac- 297, 308, 530 tor, 188; supports power reactors abroad, European Coal and Steel Community, 308,

198; Atoms-for-Peace policy, 215-16; 320, 354 Atoms-for-Peace negotiations, 229-32; UN —_ European Defense Community, 283, 321

fallout study, 292—93; desire to counter Evans, Ward V., 83, 89, 101 Gavin report, 346; Democrats criticize

Atoms-for-Peace policy, 359; internal dif- Facility expansion program, 11-12, 18 ference over disarmament, 361—64; new Failla, Gioacchino, 377—79 disarmament policy, 1956, 366; 1956 cam- Fallout: estimates in test planning, 151—53; at paign on nuclear issues, 368—70; disarma- Upshot-Knothole, 153—54; at Bravo, 173ment policy, 1957, 388; debates Stassen’s 75, 181-82; effects on Lucky Dragon, 175—disarmament plan, 392—94, 395; funding 77; public education and civil defense, reactor development, 428; faces challenge 279-83; AEC statement on, 285-87; Ke-

INDEX

Fallout (continued ) Gabriel project, 264—66

fauver hearings, 287—88; Operation Tea- Gaither, H. Rowan, Jr., 465—66 pot, 288-91; international issue, 291—95; Gale, Willis, 193 Libby and “Radivactive Fallout,” 294—95; Gallup, George, 373 national security, 294; and moratorium, Gardner, Trevor, 90 295-99; data, 328-30; hazards of testing, Garrison, Lloyd K.: selected as Oppenheimer’s 330—31; from the thermonuclear war, 345; counsel, 81; prepares case, 81—89; worries

“ice age,” 369; public understanding, about press, 88; McCarthy threat, 88-89; 375—76; dangers, 377-80; concerned sci- advises against appeal, 101—2; opposes re-

entists, 390; 1957 JCAE hearings, 391; lease of transcript, 105 public relations problem, 449-52; as- Gas-cooled reactor, 410, 425, 428, 504—5,

sessed by scientists, 455—56; Starbird 213

warns AEC, 473; UN report, 473; from So- Gates, Thomas S., Jr., 516, 558

viet 1957 tests, 478 Gavin, James M., 345, 368

Farley, Philip, 444, 542—43, 553 General advisory committee (GAC): views on Fast-breeder reactors. See Breeder reactors weapon test criteria, 158—59; evaluates Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 67-69, Castle, 180; high-energy physics, 259; fall-

268. See also Hoover, J. Edgar out statement, 284; 1956 election, 369;

682 Federal Civil Defense Administration (FCDA), fallout effects, 376; desires public state-

145, 147-48, 276, 285, 290, 465 ment on fallout, 379; considers underFederal Power Commission, 119-20 ground testing, 485—86 Federal Trade Commission, 119-20 General Atomic Corporation, 527

Federation of American Scientists, 291, 473 General Dynamics Corporation, 505, 527

Ferguson, Homer, 138 General Electric Company: contractor status,

Fermi, Enrico, 420 1952, 3; favored position in nuclear indusFermi reactor, 352, 358 try, 114; joins submarine reactor program,

Fernald Feed Materials Production Center, 186—87; develops SIR Mark A, 188; stud-

18, 161 ies aircraft reactor, 188; Knolls Atomic

Fields, Kenneth E.: at Upshot-Knothole, 149; Power Laboratory, 256; nuclear navy, 422—

schedules Castle, 165; briefs AEC on 23; reactor design evaluated, 493—95; deBravo, 182; appointed general manager, velops aircraft reactor, 517; develops S2G 206; reactor safety, 352; nuclear power submarine reactor, 520; controlled fusion policy, 424; plutonium purchase contracts, research, 527 428; urges fallback position on test ban, Genetic effects, 153, 267, 340 476; resigns as general manager, 493 Geneva conference, 1955, 232—35, 238,

Finletter, Thomas K., 92, 367 250—51, 262, 266, 305-6

Fisk, James B., 296, 486, 538-41, 557 Geneva conference, 1958, 430, 445—48,

Flemming, Arthur S., 61, 75-76, 273, 278, 526

281 Geneva foreign ministers’ conference, 301

Floberg, John F., 408-9, 418, 443-44, 476, Geneva Safeguard Conference, 313-14

492, 509 Geneva Summit Conference, 299—304

Foster, Paul F., 277, 279—80, 281, 284-85, Gillette, Guy M., 139

293, 400, 493 Giordani, Francesco, 404

Foster, William C., 36 Glass, H. Bentley, 367, 378 Foster Wheeler Corporation, 414 Glasstone, Samuel, 452-53 France: Atoms-for-Peace negotiations, 218; Glennan, T. Keith, 27 Atoms-for-Peace proposal, 220; as member = Gnome test, 529

of eight-nation working group, 229, 230; Godwin, Richard P., 507, 508 planning for Geneva, 234; seeks power re- Golden Rule, 484 actor, 308; safeguards conference, 312; Goodpaster, Andrew J., 401, 545 EURATOM, 322-23, 355-56; proposes Goodwin, Harold L., 147 bilateral agreements, 356—57; 1956 Mid- Gore-Holifield bill, 344—45, 352, 357, 405 east war, 373; first nuclear test, 386; wea- Gore, Albert A., 132, 137, 202, 341—45, 502,

pon development and EURATOM, 404; ool Geneva conference, 1958, 447; gaseous dif- Gottlieb, Melvin, 527

fusion, 448; opposes test ban, 547 Government ownership, 115, 135

Fuchs, Klaus, 35-37 Graham, John S., 424—25, 475-76, 487,

Fusion energy, 260—62, 447 929-30

INDEX

173, 487-88 535

Graves, Alvin C., 148, 152, 157, 164-66, High-energy physics, 257-60, 522-25, 530,

Gray, Gordon, 83, 89-91, 98-101, 544 Hill, David L., 368

Great nuclear debate, 562—66 Hill, Lister, 137, 248

Green, Harold P., 76—78 Himsworth, Harold, 295

Greenhouse test, 265 Hinshaw, Carl, 140-42, 197, 202 Griggs, David T., 92, 550 Hinton, Christopher, 357 Gromyko, Andrei, 380, 462 Hiroshima, Japan, 307

Groves, Leslie R., 1, 31, 96, 100 Holifield, Chet: promotes public power, 114—

Gruenther, Alfred M., 346, 481 15; opposes industrial participation bill,

121; on principal officer issue, 124; on pri-

H-bomb. See Thermonuclear weapons vate ownership, 126—27; raises electric Hafstad, Lawrence R.: director of reactor de- power issue, 128; attacks Dixon- Yates, velopment, 23; early views on nuclear 132—33; opposes Bricker amendment, 137; power, 185~86; plans reactor program, on conference committee, 140—42; ques189; opposes PWR, 192; proposes five-year tions industry’s commitment, 185; cautions program, 195; reassures JCAE on PWR, on PWR, 196; opposes power demonstra198; on power demonstration program, 200; tion program, 204; N.S. Savannah, 245;

planning for Geneva, 234; leaves AEC, weapon testing, 272; McKinney report, 683 242 327-28; chairs subcommittee on fallout

Hagerty, James, 71, 89, 338, 370, 372, effects, 331; “clean bomb,” 398; Section

045-46 202 hearings, 407; plutonium purchase

Hahn, Otto, 389 contracts, 427; criticizes AEC on fallout, Hall, John A., 234, 311, 317-19, 343, 531 454-55; questions McCone in confirmation Hall, Leonard, 349 hearing, 490; criticizes McCone reactor Hallam, NB, plant, 504, 513 program, 502-3

Hammarskjéld, Dag, 235, 448 Holmes & Narver, Inc., 169, 170

Hanford, WA, plant: new reactors, 19; pro- Homogeneous reactor, 190-91, 195-96, 505 duction reactors, 161—62; waste storage Hoover, Herbert, Jr., 284, 293, 296, 356,

and processing, 162; tritium production, 372 167; plutonium and tritium production, Hoover, J. Edgar: informed of lost document, 398; reactor development studies, 426 38-40; meets with McCarthy, 48; cautions Hardtack I test series, 389, 456—57, Strauss, 62; considers Borden letter, 67—

482-83 69; cautions on Oppenheimer charges, 69—

Hardtack IT test series, 483, 544, 548 70; meets with Murray, 74; reviews state-

Harry test, 154, 155, 156 ment of charges, 77; orders Oppenheimer Hart, Basil Liddell, 454 surveillances, 80; sends Oppenheimer in-

Hawkins, David, 51 formation to Strauss, 85

Heavy-water production, 162, 167 Hughes, Rowland R., 129-30, 131 Heavy-water reactors, 191, 197, 418, 513 Humphrey, George M., 18, 24, 52, 363, 392 Herter, Christian A.: 1956 elections, 348-49, Humphrey, Hubert H., 333, 366, 473-76

381-82; warns Stassen, 394; witnesses Hungary, 373 Stassen’s reprimand, 396; Senate challenge

to [AEA, 433; concurs in IAEA post for Idaho reactor test station, 255, 352, 422 McKinney, 436; need for strong Europe, India: small power reactors, 245; response to 440; IAEA and EURATOM, 442-43; and Bravo shot, 274; weapon test moratorium, EURATOM agreement, 443-44; on test 291; nuclear test suspension, 303; seeks suspension, 044—45; questions atmo- power reactor, 308; amendments to [AEA spheric test ban, 552—53; plans for Ge- statute, 371; hears Schweitzer appeal, 390; neva talks, 554—55; urges positive action proposes test suspension, 947-48

on test ban, 559 Indiana University, 267

Hickenlooper, Bourke B.: possible JCAE Industrial participation: favored by Eisenchairman, 39; in Oppenheimer case, 68; hower, 14; study groups, 21, 23; early legopposes information exchange, 118; reviews islative proposals, 114—15; AEC draft bill, JCAE draft bill, 121; introduces JCAE bill, 119~20; opposed by Holifield, 121; in reac133; faces opposition in Senate, 136—37; tor development, 184—86, 203—5 on conference committee, 140—42; role on Information control, 117—19, 122, 159, 176

JCAE, 202; challenge to L[AEA, 433-34 Ink, Dwight A., 450

INDEX

Inspection and verification: related to disarma- — Johnson, Warren C., 312, 370

ment, 303, 332, 363, 381; prerequisite to Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS): initiates weapon

test ban, 393, 397—98:; in EURATOM, requirements, 10; new requirements for 442—43; tied to test ban, 459, 462; Eisen- thermonuclear weapons, 166—67; weapon hower orders technical study, 471; Bethe requirements questioned, 167—68; opposes panel appointed, 471—72; detection of Stassen’s disarmament plan, 297—98, 302; Rainier, 474; Bethe panel report, 477; at rejects requirement for nuclear-powered Geneva conference of experts, 541—42; im- aircraft, 517 pact of Rainier, 541; impact of Hardtack Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (JCAE): IT, 549-51; Berkner and Panofsky panel prepares nuclear power report, 22; hearings

reports, 553-54 on Strauss and Campbell appointments, 31;

Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles, 466, compiles thermonuclear chronology, 34;

468 and lost document, 39; reviews draft bills,

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): 120—22; authorization of construction, proposed by Eisenhower, 72; planning for, 142—43; early views on reactor develop229, 238; proposed at UN, 231-32; re- ment, 189—90; urges PWR, 192; new memlated to safeguards and EURATOM, 305ff; bers, 202; favors cancellation of Dixon-

launching the agency, 308-10, 435-36; Yates, 202; holds Section 202 hearings, 684 Soviet interest, 360—61; 81l-nation confer- 203-5; monitors 5-year program, 205; von

ence, 370—71; draft statute, 370—71; Neumann’s security record, 241—42; N.S. established, 370—71; related to Atoms for Savannah, 245; Dixon- Yates, 247-48; Peace, 1957—1958, 430—48; Senate at- civil defense planning, 290; politics of nutacks treaty, 432—35; Vienna organizing clear power, 327; limited test ban, 336; on conference, 435—36; director general, morality of thermonuclear weapons, 337436—37; staffing the agency, 436-38; in- 38; reactor safety, 353; 1957 fallout hearconsistent with EURATOM, 440; reaction ings, 391, 394; skeptical of clean bomb inito U.S./EURATOM agreement, 442-44; tiative, 398; hearings on weapon testing, and EURATOM safeguards, 492; and the 399; underground testing, 400; hearings on

great debate, 565 nuclear power, 407; on Murray’s reappointpation Act, 368-71 418; federal subsidy of nuclear power,

International Atomic Energy Agency Partici- ment, 408; reactor development seminar, International Commission on Radiological Pro- 424—25; reactor development programs,

tection, 377 426; reactor development policy, 427; re-

lodine-131, 556 views U.S./EURATOM agreement, 444—

lowa State College, 256 45; new relationship to AEC under McCone,

Israel, 373 490—92; reviews McCone reactor program, Italy, 245, 308, 355, 356—57, 445, 447 901—3; considers amendment for weapon

Ivanov, Peter, 95, 97 data exchanges, 537-38; 1959 fallout

hearings, 555—56; criticized by Eisen-

Jackson, Charles D.: drafts Candor speech, hower, 563 93; discusses Candor, 57; discusses Joe 4, Joint Task Force 7, 164, 169-71, 181 98; plans TV series, 59-61; discusses di- Joliot-Curie, Madame, 331 version plan, 65; drafts speech, 66-67; fears McCarthy, 68—69; writes final draft of | Kaiser Engineers, 504 speech, 71; Stalin’s death, 214; Atoms-for- Kansas City, MO, plant, 7 Peace policy, 215; Soviet reaction, 220; at Kaufmann, William, 454 UN, 231-32, 238; disappointed in Atoms Kefauver, Estes: attacks Dixon- Yates, 137;

for Peace, 343; 1956 elections, 360 Dixon- Yates, 249; Kefauver hearings, 287—

Jackson, Henry M., 202, 398-99 88; EURATOM, 322; on H-bomb testing,

Jackson, William H., 362 339; charges U.S. behind in Atoms for

Jahn, Gunnar, 390 Peace, 343; attacks Atoms for Peace in Japan, 245, 286. See also Lucky Dragon 1956 election, 360; warns on H-bomb ef-

Jenner, William, 78, 79, 88 fects, 368

Joe 4 shot, 57—59, 165, 166, 193, 194, 212 Keirn, Donald J., 189

Johnson, Edwin C., 138, 140—42 Kennan, George F., 109

Johnson, Jesse C., 160 Kennedy, John F., 141, 518, 563

Johnson, Joseph E., 42 Kerr, Robert S., 140

Johnson, Lyndon B., 139, 427, 436 Khrushchev, Nikita: opposes Open Skies at

INDEX

Geneva, 300; complains of American du- Lapp, Ralph L.: on fallout, 281-82, 287; plicity, 336; Open Skies photography, 336; Kefauver hearings, 288; testifies on fallout, ballistic missile with nuclear warhead, 331; warns about “suicide” weapon, 338; 339; comes to power, 458; proposes joint warns about risks of testing, 340; satirizes test ban, 479; reopens disarmament ques- “clean bomb,” 347; on nuclear testing, tion, 481; accepts technical studies pro- 366; repudiates Kefauver’s H-bomb warnposal, 486; visits U.S., 533; ndicules mora- ing, 368; AEC on fallout, 376; book on falltorium, 547; rejects atmospheric test ban, out, 453; article on radiation effects, 473

99 Latimer, Wendell M., 87

Killian, James R., Jr.: Report, 273; Geneva Latter, Albert L., 554, 557 conference, 1958, 446; appointed science Lauritzen, Thomas, 367 adviser, 464; proposes technical study, Lawrence, Ernest O.: consulted on secrecy, 471; appoints Bethe panel, 472; briefed by 56; interviewed on Oppenheimer, 86, 87; Strauss, 480-81; Report, 481; special as- supports Livermore, 181; director, Radiasistant to President, 516; evaluates high- tion Laboratory, 255; high-energy physics, energy physics, 523-24; prepares for Ge- 297; fusion energy, 261; disarmament task neva conference of experts, 539; hails force, 296; clean bomb development, 399; results of conference, 542; orders study testifies on weapon testing, 399—400;

of Hardtack IT data, 549-50; assessment questions inspection proposal, 470; dele- 685 of “Geneva system,” 551; questions atmo- gate to Geneva conference of experts, 539

spheric test ban, 552—53; supports Berkner — Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. See Radiation

panel, 534; plans for Geneva talks, 554; Laboratory, Berkeley favors atmospheric test ban, 556—57; sup- Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. See Liver-

ports quota with choice, 556—57 more Laboratory

Kimpton, Lawrence A., 259 LeBaron, Robert, 217 Kissinger, Henry, 453-54 Lehman, Herbert H., 138 Kistiakowsky, George B., 516, 518, 524, 530, Lenin, icebreaker, 532, 534.

907 Libby, Willard F.: opposes Oppenheimer’s re-

Kiwi-A reactor, 518 appointment, 46; on power demonstration Knapp, Harold A., 279 program, 206; nominated to AEC, 241; Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, 187-88, second invitation to industry, 246; Project 256, 422—23, 493 Gabriel, 265—66; fallout spokesman, 278;

Knowland, William F.: leads Senate debate, on fallout estimates, 280—81; radiation 137—38; moves to end filibuster, 139—40; hazards, 283; fallout statement, 284; Keon conference committee, 140—42; role on fauver hearings, 287-88; Operation Teapot JCAE, 202; critical of Stassen, 349; chal- fallout, 288; Nevada Test Site, 289; ““Radiolenge to IAEA, 733-34; reservations to active Fallout,” 294—95; implementing IAEKA statute, 432; on [AFA staffing, 436 Atoms for Peace, 308; safeguards confer-

Kohnstamm, Max, 441-42, 444 ence, 312; safeguards issues, 318-20;

Kouts, Herbert J., 343 Project Sunshine fallout data, 329-30; tesKozlov, Frol R., 532 tifies on fallout effects, 330—31; on NAS

Krishna Menon, V. K., 316 report, 340; proposes AEC statement on Kuboyama, Aikichu, 271 “clean bombs,” 347; on public power, 359; Kuchel, Thomas H., 339 on world fallout, 361—62; fallout estimates,

Kulp, J. Lawrence, 473 377-78; importance of Project Sunshine,

Kuykendall, Jerome K., 119 379-80; test moratorium at London conferKyes, Roger M., 27—28, 30, 66-67, 69, 71- ence, 389; answers Schweitzer, 390; drafts

72, 215 Strauss’s test ban strategy, 393-94;

federal subsidy for nuclear power, 407;

Lamert, Rudi, 98 EURATOM safeguards, 441, 443; Geneva Langer, William H., 138 conference, 1958, 446, 447; briefs JCAE Laniel, Joseph, 71 and State on fallout, 449; article on radia-

Lansdale, John, Jr., 87, 95-96, 98, 100 tion effects, 473; testifies on disarmament, LaPlante, Bryan F.: Augusta briefing, 2, 3; 474; urges underground testing, 477; quesNY trip, 12; liaison with FBI, 52; investi- tions aircraft reactor, 517; on high-energy gates Oppenheimer, 63; on Oppenheimer physics, 523; urges Plowshare research, clearance, 70; assists on hearing, 86; 929; proposes test limitation, 543; reports

Muller affair, 267 on Soviet tests, 548

INDEX

Lilienthal, David E., 9, 217, 402 concentrates on reactor prototypes, 503-4;

Lindbergh, Charles A., 277 wins confidence of JCAE, 503-4; evaluLiquid-metal reactor, 505 ates power demonstration projects, 904—6; Lithium production, 162—63, 166, 167, 179 requests long-range plans for nuclear Livermore Laboratory: described, 7; expan- power, 508; supports aircraft reactor, 517— sion of research facilities, 19; planning 18; admires Rickover, 521—22; blocks subfor Upshot-Knothole, 146; achievements at marine data to NATO, 522; evaluates highCastle, 180; relation to Lawrence Berkeley energy physics, 522—25; scales back Laboratory, 256; fusion energy, 261; weapon controlled fusion research, 527; on Plowtesting, 288; scientists testify on produc- share research, 529-30; considers sciention, 399; Geneva conference, 1958, 447; tific exchanges with USSR, 533; visits develops nuclear ramjet, 518; early Plow- USSR, 533-34; negotiates Emelyanov

share research, 528—30 agreement, 534—35; final meeting with Livingston, M. Stanley, 291 Emelyanov, 536; testifies on test suspen-

Lloyd, Selwin, 472 sion, 540; favors test limitation, 543—45;

Lodge, Henry Cabot: and Atoms-for-Peace supports study of Hardtack I data, 549; draft speech, 66; favors power reactors supports Macmillan test ban proposal, 552; abroad, 199; UN discussions of Atoms for proposes atmospheric test ban, 552—53; 686 Peace, 228, 238; Atoms-for-Peace negotia- develops strategy for Geneva talks, 554— tions, 231—32; test moratorium, 275; sup- o7; favors resumption of testing, 597; on ports UN fallout study, 292—95; disarma- threshold proposal, 558—60; insists on ment inspection, 303; disarmament at UN, need for underground testing, 559—60

380-81; supports Stassen, 470 McCool, Woodford B., 243 Lomanitz, Giovanni Rossi, 98—99 McDonald, T. L., 458

London disarmament conference, 294—96, McElroy, Neill, 483

296—97, 382-85, 458-61 McKay, Douglas, 18 Long Beach, CGN, 521 McKinney, Robert M.: heads JCAE reactor Long-range detection system, 57—58 study, 205, 327-28; advocates nuclear

Loper, Herbert B., 291, 293-94, 392, 394, power, 343; heads American delegation to

477 Vienna, 436; receives IAEA post, 436; on

Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory: described, IAEA staffing, 438; concern about U.S./

7; expansion of research facilities, 19; EURATOM agreement, 442—43; EURplanning for Upshot-Knothole, 145—46; ATOM safeguards, 444; Geneva conferpredicts test hazards, 150—51; panel on ence, 1958, 446 test safety, 151-53; achievements of McKinney panel report, 321—22, 327—28 Castle, 180; power demonstration program, McMahon, Brien, 5, 32, 35-37 251; basic research, 256; fusion energy, Macmillan, Harold: report on fallout, 284— 261; weapon testing, 288; Geneva confer- 85; meets Eisenhower in Bermuda, 383; on ence, 1958, 447; develops nuclear rocket, Soviet economic problems, 392; seeks U.S.

918; controlled fusion research, 525 cooperation on weapons, 466; urges flexi-

Lovett, Robert M., 481 bility on disarmament, 468—69; accepts

Lucky Dragon, 175-77, 225, 271, 307 U.S. moratorium, 548; proposes test ban

Luedecke, Alvin R., 493, 507-8 without disarmament, 551—52; meets

Luntz, Jerome D., 126 Khrushchev in Moscow, 553; proposes limiting on-site inspections, 554 McAfee, James W., 129—30 McRae, James W., 557 McCarthy, Joseph R., 48, 68-70, 87-89, Magnuson, Warren G., 137

433 Makins, Sir Roger, 218-19

McCloy, John, Jr., 481 Malenkov, Georgi M., 57-58, 214, 220 McCone, John A.: appointed AEC chairman, Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, 161 489-91; new relationship with JCAE, 490— Marks, Herbert S., 78—80, 81-89, 91 92; evaluates power reactors, 493—95; ad- Marshallese. See Bravo shot ministrative style, 497—98; appoints reac- Martin Company, 519 tor advisory committee, 497—98; receives Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 527 JCAE reactor study, 497; strategy for civil- “Massive retaliation,” 182, 332 ian power development, 500—501; faces Materials testing reactor, 191 budget limitations in reactor program, 501; Matsushita, Masateshi, 389

briefs JCAE on reactor program, 501-3; Matterhorn project, 37

INDEX

Medical Research Council, 295, 340 242—43; small power reactors, 246; Dixon-

Memphis, TN, 129-30, 248—49 Yates, 248; advocates test moratorium,

Mendes-France, Pierre, 285 274; Operation Teapot, 289; questions ac-

Merchant, Livingston T., 218, 321 curacy of fallout data, 330; qualifies fallout Midwest Universities Research Association data, 331; calls for limited test ban, 336—

(MURA), 258, 259, 522 37; morality of thermonuclear weapons, Mike shot, 3-4, 7, 34, 54, 164 337-39; proposes unilateral suspension Military Applications, Division of, 149 of thermonuclear testing, 337; inspires Military liaison committee, 19, 456 Stevenson on H-bomb testing ban, 338;

Millikin, Eugene D., 125, 202 proposes power reactor projects, 341; at-

Mills, Mark, 399—400 tacks “clean bomb statement,” 347; re-

Mitchell, William: assigned Oppenheimer leases reactor safety report, 353; on public case, 75—78; informed of surveillance, 81; nuclear power, 359; reservations on Stasorganizes review board, 83; rules on access sen’s disarmament plan, 361; unilateral test to AEC records, 85; explains hearing pro- moratorium, 361]; on need for Plumbbob cedures, 86; alerts Garrison on press in- tests, 378; testing tactical weapons, 389; quiry, 88; at hearings, 90; on draft legisla- federal support for nuclear power, 406—7; tion, 120; drafts comments on JCAE bill, reappointment, 408; uranium procurement

122 Jules, for EURATOM, 432;large replaced on CommisMoch, 386 sion, 436; favors power reactors, 438

Modus vivendi, 1948, 118

Mollet, Guy, 355 Nagasaki, Japan, 307 Molotov, Vyacheslav M., 214, 219, 220-22 Namu Island, 345

Molten-salt reactor, 505 Nancy shot, 153, 155

Monnet, Jean, 355, 404—5 Nasser, Gamal Abdel, 349

Monopoly of technology, 114—15, 116, 127 National Academy of Sciences (NAS): fallout

Morgan, Thomas A., 84, 89-90, 98-99 study, 292, 295; report on biological effects Morse, John H., Jr., 385, 539—40, 550 of atomic radiation, 340—41; collecting

Morse, Wayne, 136, 138, 139 fallout data, 341; genetic mutations, 369;

Morton, John J., 175 fallout effects, 376; NRC report of radiation

Mound Laboratory, 7, 256 effects, 456

Muller, Hermann J., 266—69, 391 National Association of Manufacturers, 433

Murphree, Eger V., 498 National Committee for Sane Nuclear Policy,

Murphy, Charles J. V., 47-48, 57 484

Murray, Thomas E.: briefs Eisenhower, 13— National Committee on Radiation Protection,

15; favors government development, 25; 377 proposed PWR, 28; briefing on nuclear National laboratories, 8~9, 252—70 power, 29; supports Rickover on PWR, 32; = National Review, 433

briefs J. Edgar Hoover, 39; opposes Op- National Science Foundation, 233 penheimer’s reappointment, 46; favors se- National Security Council (NSC): special com-

crecy, 96; meets Nichols, 64; discusses mittee, 11; briefed by Dean, 19; reviews Borden letter, 68; briefed on Oppenheimer, reactor report, 24; consultants’ report on 74—75; on statement of charges, 78; on nuclear power, 25-26; urges private develgeneral manager’s review, LO1; opposes re- opment of nuclear power, 26; briefed by lease of transcript, 105; votes against Op- Dean on power, 29—30; briefed on lost

penheimer, 106—7; on patents, 117; on document, 40; discusses disarmament principal officer issue, 123-24; learns of study, 43-44; studies power reactor policy, Dixon- Yates proposal, 129; opposes Dixon- 198—99; peaceful bilaterals, 226~27; NSC Yates, 130; informs JCAE of Dixon- Yates, 5431/1, 227-28, 230; planning board, 132-33; urges more tests, 158; urges more 239—40; N.S. Savannah, 244—45; second ore production, 161; supports Rickover on invitation to industry, 247; opposes test PWR, 192-93; announces PWR project, moratorium, 275-76; fallout statement, 194—95; attacks Strauss on Dixon- Yates, 285; briefed on disarmament, 297; consid203; reaction to Atoms-for-Peace speech, ers Open Skies, 301-2; Atoms-for-Peace 210; tension with Strauss, 213; weapon test policy, 310—11; safeguards policy, 316; moratorium, 222—23; conflict with Strauss, examines Stassen’s proposals, 334—35; 224; bilateral agreements, 237; supports nuclear research, 341; debates Stassen’s Rickover for director, reactor development, disarmament plan, 392—94; “Peaceful

687

INDEX

National Security Council (NSC) (continued) 69; access to nuclear submarine data, 522;

Uses of Atomic Energy,” 438; reassesses seeks U.S. weapon data, 537-38

Atoms-for-Peace policy, 439 Norway, 380

Natural uranium reactors, 413, 425 Nuclear Congress, 410 Nautilus, SSN, 118, 421, 422—23, 520-21 Nuclear navy. See Aircraft carrier reactors; Navy, U.S., 169-70, 174, 186-—88, 422-23, Navy, U.S.; Submarine reactors

02] Nuclear power. See Civilian power

Nehru, Jawaharlal, 223, 274, 285, 389, 468, Nuclear-powered aircraft. See Aircraft reactors

469 Nuclear Power Group, 193, 196—97, 205, Nelson, Charles E., 247 207, 25]

Netherlands, 308, 447 Nuclear proliferation, 348

Neuberger, Richard, 379 Nuclear submarines. See Submarine reactors

Nevada Proving Ground, 19, 144—45 Nuclear test ban. See Test ban Nevada Test Site, 289—91, 383, 483 Nuclear war scenarios, 451—52

“New look,” 272 Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, 453—54

Newman, James R., 113 Nucleonics, 414 New York Health and Safety Laboratory, 153

New York Shipbuilding Company, 506 Oak Ridge, TN, plant: lithium production, 18,

688 New York Times, 434, 443 162-63, 166—67, 179; uranium 235 proNichols, Kenneth D.: appointed general man- duction, 161—62, 167; deuterium plant,

ager, 64—65; opposes Oppenheimer clear- 167 ance, 64—65; observes Oppenheimer case, Oak Ridge Institute of Nuclear Studies, 254,

70; reviews statement of charges, 76—77; 299 meets with Oppenheimer, 78—80; approves | Oak Ridge National Laboratory: described, 8;

surveillance, 81; on attorney clearances, studies aircraft reactor, 188; studies homo81-82, 85; H-bomb charges, 92; reviews geneous reactor, 190—91; in 5-year reactor board’s opinion, 101—4; reacts to scientists’ program, 195—96; power demonstration protest, 111; questions Dixon- Yates pro- program, 251; regional research center, posal, 129—30; negotiates Dixon- Yates 253—54; radiation effects, 264; Geneva proposal, 131; submits statement on Dixon- conference, 1958, 447; controlled fusion Yates, 132; testifies on Dixon- Yates, 132-— research, 526 33; orders plant expansion, 168; briefs Ogle, William E., 169, 172—73 JCAE on Shippingport, 197; orders regula- Olds, Leland, 127 tory study, 199-200; proposes power dem- On the Beach, 452 onstration program, 200—202; justifies Ooms, Casper W., 116-17, 127 program, 203-4; resigns as general man- Open Skies: proposed at Geneva conference, ager, 206, 242; and Dixon-Yates, 249; fall- 299-304; safeguards and inspections, out report, 277; fallout statement, 284 299— 300; over nuclear facilities, 300; Bul-

Nichols, Lou B., 67 ganin on, 301; compared to Atoms for

Nixon, Richard M.: on Joint Committee staff, Peace, 301; a fading hope, 335-36; Stas40; and McCarthy, 89; watches House de- sen’s modified plan, 336; over NATO and bate, 139; on Savannah project, 244; test Warsaw Pact, 380; London disarmament moratorium, 275; on Stassen’s disarmament conference, 388; disarmament policy, 393; plan, 299; 1956 election, 348—49; counters minor issue at disarmament conference, 395 Stevenson’s disarmament initiative, 365; Operations Coordinating Board, 283 attacked by Stassen, 375, 381-82; consid- Oppenheimer case: statement of charges, 73-— ers replacing Stassen, 463; briefed by 78; surveillance, 80—81; review board apDulles on Stassen, 469-70; visits USSR, pointed, 83—84; preparations for hear-

532 ing, 84—89; Gray board hearings, 89-92;

Norris, George, Jr., 121, 126, 141, 142 Crouch incident, 92; H-bomb charge, 92North American Aviation, Inc., 195—96, 94; Chevalier affair, 94—98; Gray board de-

358 cision, 90-101; general manager’s review,

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO): 101—4; publication of hearings, 104—5; Atoms for Peace, 226; fallout statement, Commission decision, 105—9; significances 284, 286; angered by Stassen, 395; con- of, 109—12; reaction of scientists, 111—12 sultations on disarmament, 397; linked to Oppenheimer, Frank, 91, 96, 97, 103 EURATOM, 430; Eisenhower-Macmillan Oppenheimer, J. Robert: background, 36; dimeeting, 466-—67; Paris conference, 468— rects disarmament panel, 42—44; presents

INDEX

Candor report, 44; suspected by Strauss, gram, 901; reviews Hallam project, 504; 45-46; FBI file, 45; leaves GAC, 46; under recommends water- and organic-cooled reattack, 47-50; under scrutiny by Strauss, actors, 505; drafts reactor program for o1l—53; consultantship extended, 53; writes 1960, 505—6; learns McCone style, 508;

article, 53-54; clearance questioned, directs study of long-range plan, 508-14; 64-65; attacked by Borden, 67-70; clear- visits USSR, 533 ance revoked, 70; receives statement of Pitzer, Kenneth S., 76—77, 533 charges, 78—80; under surveillance, 80— Pius XII, Pope, 274, 304 81; prepares for hearing, 81—89; at hear- Plowshare project, 528—30, 544—45 ings, 91; favors release of transcript, 105; Plumbbob test series, 378, 379, 383, 389 clearance not reinstated, 106—9; views on Plutonium: production, 161—62, 398-99; efdisarmament, 212; von Neumann’s security fects of tritium requirement on production, record, 241—42; on tactical weapons, 402; 167; impact of Castle on production, 179;

American Assembly, 415 reactor development for production, 191; Oppenheimer, Katherine, 91 purchase contracts, 427~28; EURATOM Organic-moderated reactor, 513 safeguards, 443—44 Organization for European Economic Cooper- Pluto project, 518-19

ation (QEEC), 308, 320, 371, 439 Polaris submarines, 422, 520, 521

Organization of American States (OAS), 439 Porter, Charles O., 475 689 Osgood, Robert, 454 Portsmouth, OH, plant, 19, 162, 167

Outer space, 381 Portuguese ore, 159, 229, 230

Power demonstration reactor program: pro-

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 193 posed, 201—2; in Section 202 hearings, Paducah, KY, plant, 18, 127, 162, 167 203~—5; proposals received, 205; AEC Panofsky, Wolfgang K. H., 523, 550, 553, evaluation, 205—8; demonstration projects,

561 341-44; third round, 405—6; criticized,

Pash, Boris T., 87, 95—96, 97 409—10

Pastore, John O.: opposes Bricker amend- Power Reactor Development Company, 251 ment, 137; supports preference clause, 141; Power reactors: small plants, 240, 245—46; role on JCAE, 202; urges power reactor large plants, 311; in Gore-Holifield bill, development, 204; on clean bomb develop- 344—45; demonstration program, 352, ment, 400; challenge to [AEA, 433~—34 398; bilateral agreements, 356—57 Patents: licensing provisions in 1946 act, 115; Pratt & Whitney Division, United Aircraft, 517 proposed amendment of 1946 act, 115-17; President’s Science Advisory Committee compulsory licensing, 120; in JCAE hear- (PSAC), 464, 480 ings, 125—28; Cole provision removed from Pressurized water reactor (PWR): proposed, bill, 135-36; compulsory licensing adopted, 28; selected for submarine propulsion,

140-42 190-91; assigned to Rickover, 192—94;

Patterson, Morehead, 231, 236, 309, 310 project announced, 194—95; in 5-year proPauling, Linus, 111, 391, 401, 451-52, gram, 195—96; at Shippingport, 196-98,

472—73 359; AEC evaluation in 1960, 510

Payne, Frederick G., 292 Price, Harold L., 200, 251-52, 498

Peaceful uses of nuclear power. See Plowshare Price, Melvin, 114, 121, 185, 328, 416, 516-17

project Price-Anderson Act, 410

Pearson, Paul B., 282 Princeton University, 447, 525-26, 527

Peaslee, Amos J., 349, 362 Principal officer issue, 122—25, 135 Penny, Sir William, 539 Principals, committee of, 480—81, 544, 555,

Peters, Bernard, 98, 99 908-59

Peterson, Val, 61, 147—49, 280-81, 286 Private vs. public power: issue raised, 26—

Philadelphia Electric Company, 505 32; in JCAE hearings, 125-27; in Dixon-

Pick, Vernon J., 160 Yates, 127—33; in Senate debate, 137—38;

Pike, Sumner, 415 impact on Atomic Energy Act of 1954,

Piore, Emanuel R., 523-25 140-41; Strauss avoids conflict, 354; rePiqua, OH, reactor, 359, 513 lated to Atoms for Peace, 360 Pittman, Frank K.: appointed director of reac- _ Production of special nuclear materials. See tor development, 498; gathers data on reac- Lithium; Plutonium; Tritium; Uranium 235

tor program, 498—99; uses task forces, Proton synchrotron, 522 499; estimates costs of new reactor pro- Public Health Service, 289

INDEX

Public Utility Holding Company Act, 345 PWR development, 192—94; manages

Pugwash conference, 451]—52 Shippingport project, 196-98; Murray’s candidate for director, 242; doubts about

Quarles, Donald, 392, 393, 457, 463, 482, N.S. Savannah, 244-45; Argonne Na-

044. tional Laboratory, 255; Shippingport reactor, 358; supported by Floberg, 408; suc-

Rabi, Isidor I.: briefed on Castle, 180; plan- cess at Shippingport, 419—22; builds ning for Geneva, 232—35; fallout evalua- nuclear navy, 422—23; advises McCone on tion, 274; heads U.S. safeguards delega- reactors, 493-95; raises safety question, tion, 312; safeguards conference, 313-15; 497; evaluates Savannah project, 506-8; Geneva conference, 1958, 446; proposes develops new submarine reactors, 520-21; cooperative research with USSR, 531-32; visits USSR, 532—33

on test suspension, 544 Robb, Roger, 84, 85-86, 90, 93-94, 100—Rabinowitch, Eugene, 182, 282, 549 101, 103

Raborn, William F., 520 Robinson, William E., 286 Radford, Arthur W., 223, 244, 297-98, 362, Roecard, Yves, 539

392, 394. Rochester, University of, 256

Radiation effects: in AEC report, 150—51; on Rockefeller, Nelson A., 245, 300

69 0sheep, 155—56; of sheep kill, Foundation, 290, 295 08; from Bravo,study 174—75; study of,157263;Rockefeller Rocket propulsion, 518-19 cited by Glasstone, 452—53; UN study, Rocky Flats, CO, plant, 19 455-56; ACBM study, 456; NAS-NRC Roddis, Louis H., 243

study, 456; UN report, 473 Rogers, William P., 84

Radiation Laboratory, Berkeley, 255, 257, Rolander, C. Arthur, Jr., 86, 90, 91

922, 525 Rongelap, 174, 271, 331

Radiation standards, 152—53, 158—59 Roosevelt, Franklin D., 359 Radio Corporation of America, 527 Rosenberg, Julius and Ethel, 40

Radiological warfare, 345—46 Rover project, 518-19

Radiology, conference on, 282

Rainier shot, 461, 529 Safeguards: Open Skies, 299-300; EURATOM Ramey, James T., 342, 417, 426, 427, 449- and the IAEA, 305ff; definition of problem,

90, 475, 495 310—13; reevaluated, 314—17; AEC task

Ramjet reactor, 518 force, 316—17; EURATOM, 323; IAEA, Rand Corporation, 265 371, 439; EURATOM, 440-42, 443; interRanger test series, 265 national controls, 444; in EURATOM Raw Materials Development Laboratory, 256 agreement, 492

Raw materials procurement, 159-61 Salisbury, Morse, 157, 282

Reactor advisory group, 417 Sandia Laboratory, 7, 19, 180, 256 Reactor development, division of, 192, 197 Sands, Matthew, 367 Reactor safeguards, advisory committee on, San Francisco, University of, 256

352-53 Santa Fe Operations Office, 9, 149, 170

Reactors. See individual reactor types Savannah, N.S., 244-45, 506-8

Redox process, 162 Savannah River, SC, plant: new production Redwing test series: drop test of H-bomb, 331; reactors, 19, 161—62; heavy-water producfallout effects, 347, 389; Gavin and “clean tion, 162; tritium production, 167; plu-

bombs,” 345-48; Libby reports fallout, tonium and tritium production, 398—99 369; and Operation Sunshine, 376; Eisen- Schubert, Jack, 473

hower’s assessment, 398 Schweitzer, Albert, 31, 274, 389-91, 450

Regulation and licensing, 251—52, 353 Science advisory committee. See President’s

Research, 252-57 Science Advisory Committee Research reactors, 311 Scoville, Herbert, Jr., 277, 477 Reston, James, 87-88, 90, 546 Seaborg, Glenn T., 98, 256 Restricted data, 117—18, 121-22, 134 Seawolf, SSN, 423, 520

Rickover, Hyman G.: directs carrier reactor Second round. See Power demonstration reac-

development, 28; given PWR develop- tor program ment, 32; starts submarine reactor program, Secrecy: at Mike shot, 4; on NY trip, 12, 13—

186; management techniques, 187; selects 14; and Candor, 50, 52; Smyth study, pressurized-water reactor, 191; assigned D0— 96; on Joe 4, 58-60

INDEX

960 243

Section 202 hearings, 203—5, 342, 403, 406 hower inauguration arrangements, 17; on

Segre, Emilio, 259 NSC planning board, 198-99, 239; and

Seismic detection, 542, 543, 549—50, 553, international agency, 226; leaves AEC,

Sewell, Duane C., 487 SNAP reactor, 519

Sherwood project, 261-62, 525, 527 Snyder, Laurence H., 391 Shippingport, PA, project: project design and — Sobolev, Arkady, 300 construction, 196—98; dedication, 227— Sodium-cooled reactor, 422—23, 513 28; Geneva reactors, 250; compared to Cal- — Sodium-graphite reactor, 24, 195-96

der Hall, 327, 357~—58; nuclear power Solandt, Ormond, 539 plant, 407; success of power project, 419— Soviet weapon tests, 35-36 22; plant evaluated by McCone, 493-94 Spaak, Paul-Henri, 354-—55, 404, 405, 432

Shute, Nevil, 452 Space vehicle reactor, 519 Silverman, Samuel J., 81, 91 Sparkman, John J., 137

Simon shot, 154—56 Special nuclear material, 3, 135, 435

Skate, SSN, 422, 520-21 Spitzer, Lyman, Jr., 260-61, 525, 533

Skipjack, SSN, 521 Sporn, Philip, 193 Skobel’tsyn, Dimitri V., 313-14 Sprague, Robert C., 465 Smith, Bromley, 401 Sputnik, 416, 439, 446, 464, 515-16 69] Smith, Gerard C.: Russians in JAEA, 229-30; — St. George, UT, 153-54, 290 planning for Geneva, 233-35; small power — Stalin, Joseph, 214 reactors, 245; Bravo fallout, 278—79; fall- Stanford linear accelerator, 523 out statement, 285; UN fallout studies, Starbird, Alfred D.: examines limited testing,

293-94; evaluates Geneva conference, 362; weapon effects studies, 369; test 308; safeguards conference, 311], 312, moratorium, 389; warns AEC on fallout, 314—15; Atoms-for-Peace risks, 317-18; 473; testifies at Humphrey hearings, 474; psychological success of Atoms for Peace, proposes harbor excavation experiment, 320; EURATOM priority, 321-23; 1956 476; opposes Bethe panel report, 477; conelections, 360; enriched uranium for peace- sults lab directors on underground testing, ful purposes, 371; disarmament talks in 487; distrusts Soviets on moratorium, 548; Bermuda, 1957, 383; Dulles disarmament urges resumption of testing, 557; warns of aid, 384; EURATOM, 405; briefs Eisen- low morale in labs, 559—60 hower on Hardtack, 456; briefs Senate Stassen, Harold: special assistant on disarmacommittee on disarmament, 459—60; on ment, 296—98; briefs NSC on disarma-

military bilateral, 467 ment, 297; on disarmament, 300; Open Smith, Lawrence H., 45] Skies, 300-301; disarmament policy, 302,

Smith, Walter Bedell, 212, 296, 481 333, 334-35; EURATOM safeguards, 323; Smyth, Henry D.: background, 12; briefs Bulganin letter, 335; disarmament subEisenhower, 12—15, 29; supports civilian committee in London, 336; disarmament power, 28; discounts Soviet test, 36; pre- plan, 348—49; supports Herter for vicepares security study, 55; briefed on Oppen- president, 348—49; “Secretary of Peace,” heimer, 73—75; on statement of charges, 349; June 29, 1956, disarmament plan, 78; on general manager’s review, 101, 103; 361-64; disarmament adviser, 362, 375, opposes release of transcript, 105; votes for 380-82; setbacks after 1956 election,

Oppenheimer, 106; on patents, 116; on 381-82; assigned to State Department, principal officer issue, 123; opposes Dixon- 382; candidate for Pennsylvania governor, Yates, 131-32; concern for potential fall- 384; recalled from London, 385—87; in out, 168; briefs JCAE on reactors, 197—98; trouble for “personal” diplomacy, 387; May disarmament technical committee, 1953, 1957 disarmament proposal, 387; disarma212-13; chairman, Atoms-for-Peace work- ment plan, 391; “informal memorandum” to ing group, 216; Atoms-for-Peace working Zorin, 394; returns to London disarmament group, 219-20; leaves Commission, 241; conference, 394; disarmament faux pas,

supports Stevenson, 368; American As- 395; reprimanded, 396-97; finds opposisembly, 415—16; on JCAE reactor panel, tion to test ban, 458; urges softening Lon495; on AEC reactor advisory committee, don proposals, 463; makes final proposal,

497-98 469; resigns, 471; testifies at disarmament

Snapp, Roy B.: briefs Eisenhower, 1—5; re- hearings, 474

ports meeting, 5; NY briefing, 9-14; Eisen- State, Department of: disarmament panel, 42;

INDEX

State, Department of (continued ) 130; questions Dixon- Yates proposal, 131; views of AEC draft bills, 119; favors power testifies for Dixon- Yates, 133; concern over reactors abroad, 199; agreements of cooper- fallout, 156; questions Castle schedule, ation, 225; Atoms-for-Peace negotiations, 165; obtains funds for new plant, 166; 230—31; small power reactors, 245; UN questions JCS requirements, 168; prepares fallout study, 292, safeguards conference report on Bravo, 177; testifies on nuclear agenda, 311; EURATOM, 354; fosters Eu- power, 183; delays PWR announcement, ropean political and economic integration, 193; briefs NSC on power reactor, 198—99;

354; launching [AEA, 435; redefining pushes power demonstration program, 200; Atoms for Peace, 438—39; on Soviet sci- disputes Murray’s charges, 203; testifies ence, 439-40; U.S./EURATOM joint pro- at Section 202 hearings, 203; reaction to gram, 440; safeguards and EURATOM, Atoms-for-Peace speech, 211; tension with 441, 443; fallout report to UN, 456; sub- Murray, 213; Atoms-for-Peace policy, 215—

mits new moratorium proposal, 46] 16; Atoms-for-Peace negotiations, 218;

Steen, Charles A., 160 conflict with Murray, 224; weapon test Stellarator, 261, 525 moratorium study, 223; Atoms-for-Peace Stevenson, Adlai: proposes ban on H-bomb proposal, 226; Atoms-for-Peace negotiatesting, 338—39; 1956 election, 351, 364— tions, 230-31; [AEA, 231—32; planning

692 70; calls for test ban, 362; challenges Ei- for Geneva, 232—34, 235; NSC planning

senhower’s disarmament policy, 364-66; board, 239—40; builds his team, 241-43; support for his nuclear policies, 367-69; opposes Rickover for director, 242; von Bulganin letter, 372—73; test ban, 375; Neumann’s security record, 242; nuclear asked to support Administration on NATO, merchant ship, 244; small power reactors,

467-68 246; second invitation to industry, 246—

Strauss, Franz Josef, 355 47; Dixon-Yates, 247—49; power demon-

Strauss, Lewis L.: appointed special assistant stration program, 251; fusion energy, 261— to President, 20; advises on reactor policy, 62; Muller affair, 268—69; announces 24; appointed chairman, 30—31; testifies Bravo shot, 272—73; test moratorium,

on civilian power, 31—32; consulted by 274—75; studies test moratorium, 275; Borden, 40; questions Oppenheimer’s mo- meets with Cherwell, 276; fallout report, tives, 45—46; supports attack on Op- 277-78; public statement on fallout, 283— penheimer, 47; concerned about McCarthy, 84, 286; Nevada Test Site, 289—90; op-

48; opposes Candor, 49-50, 61-62; in- poses UN fallout study, 292—93; opposes vestigates Oppenheimer, 51—53; favors se- Stassen’s disarmament plan, 298-99, 302— crecy, 99-97; considers Joe 4, 57-59; 3; questions Open Skies, 301; appeals to controls information on H-bomb, 61, inves- Eisenhower to oppose test ban, 303; safetigates Oppenheimer, 63-64; selects guards issues, 318; dissent on EURATOM, Nichols, 64; drafts diversion plan, 65; re- 321-24; on Geneva conference, 327; opviews Atoms-for-Peace speech, 66; presi- position to public power, 327; opposes limdential meeting on Oppenheimer, 69; ited testing, 334; Bulganin letter, 335, suspends Oppenheimer’s clearance, 70; ad- 372; angered by Murray’s testimony, 338; vises on Atoms-for-Peace speech, 71—72; opposes Gore bill, 342—43; on Gavin rebriefs Commission on Oppenheimer case, port, 346; announces Redwing test results, 73—75; meets with Oppenheimer, 78-80; 347; “clean bomb statement,” 347; opposes orders surveillance of Oppenheimer, 80; Murray on clean bombs, 347; commitment prepares for Oppenheimer hearing, 81-89; to nuclear power, 352—54; on reactor receives FBI information, 85—86; dis- safety report, 353-54; rebuked by Dulles, cusses Oppenheimer at White House, 89; 356-57; domestic nuclear power, 356; and Gardner incident, 90; discusses hear- minimizes Calder Hall reactor, 357-58; ing findings with Eisenhower, 105; releases opposes public nuclear power, 358—59; transcript, 105; votes against Oppenheimer, counters Kefauver in 1956 election, 360; 106, 108-9; troubled by reaction, 111; op- disarmament adviser, 362; doubts U.S. can poses information exchange, 118; sends stop testing, 363; 1956 election, 369; endraft bills to President, 119; on principal riched uranium for peaceful uses, 371; on officer issue, 122—25; testifies on JCAE need for public fallout statement, 378; on bill, 122—23; testifies on industrial devel- need for Plumbbob tests, 378; favors limited opment, 125-26; early discussions of testing and “clean weapons,” 386; defends Dixon- Yates, 129; views on Dixon-Yates, testing, 388; AEC “fall-back” position

INDEX

on testing, 391—92; silent on Stassen’s dis- missile-launching submarines, 422—23;

armament plan, 392; lines up support for new types developed, 520-21 testing, 392—93; left alone to defend test- Suez Canal, 373 ing, 393; clean bombs, 398; frustrates Sunshine project, 264—66, 329, 331, 375-77 Eisenhower on test ban, 401; mandate for Sunshine unit, 329 private power, 403; power demonstration Surprise attack, 299, 332, 381 program, 405-6; seeks to avoid public Sweden, 293 power program, 407, 415-16, 423-25; Symington, Stuart, 48, 288, 345, 367, 474 stalemate on nuclear program development, 418~—19; Shippingport, 420—21; considers Taber, John, 416

reappointment as chairman, 427; pluto- Tammaro, Alphonso, 498, 508 nium purchase contracts, 427-28; reactor Tatlock, Jean, 91 development program, 427; retires as Taylor, Maxwell D., 477 chairman, 429; confronts Dulles on bilat- Teapot Operation, 288—90 erals, 431; EURATOM treaty, 432; Senate Technological Capabilities Panel, 273 challenge to JAEA, 433; recruits Cole for Teeple, David S., 68, 86, 433 IAEA director general, 436—37; seeks Teller, Edward: in H-bomb dispute, 35; briefs [AEA post for McKinney, 436; opposes in- JCAE on Soviet test, 36; disputes Bethe on

dependent EURATOM safeguards, 442; Fuchs, 37; on H-bomb, 37; opposes Op- 693

concern about [AEA reaction to EURATOM penheimer's reappointment, 46; critical of agreement, 442; compromise on EURATOM Oppenheimer, 76—77; interviewed on Opsafeguards, 444; acting Secretary of Com- penheimer, 86, 87; testifies against Oppenmerce, 446; Geneva conference, 1958, heimer, 93—94; influence at Livermore,

445-46; fusion power at Geneva, 447; 180; weapon test moratorium, 224; fusion sees fallout as public relations problem, energy, 261; questions test moratorium, 450; urges attack on Cousins, 451; on UN 276; on clean weapons, 346; advises need radiation study, 455; briefs Eisenhower on for reactor safety studies, 353; fallout efHardtack, 456—57; criticizes weapon pro- fects, 376; clean bomb development, 398— gram, 497; opposes test ban, 459, 460—61; 99; testifies on weapon testing, 399—400; optimistic on disarmament, 460; supports on concealing underground tests, 400; arLondon proposals, 463; opposes military gues with Eisenhower on testing, 401; probilateral, 467; objects to moratorium, 470; motes underground testing, 461, 485-86, testifies at Humphrey hearings, 474; links 487; questions inspection proposal, 470; production cut to test ban, 476, 478; dis- supports need for testing, 475; promotes tressed by Eisenhower test ban statement, Plowshare research, 529; proposes test lim479; criticizes PSAC report, 480—81; op- itation, 543; briefs Eisenhower on Hardposes test ban proposal, 482; opposes high- tack, 544; questions “Geneva system,” 550 altitude tests, 482—83; counters anti-test Tennessee Valley Authority, 26, 128-33,

demonstrations, 484—85; becomes presi- 248-49 dential adviser on Atoms for Peace, 486; Test ban: opposed by Commission, 295; lim-

leaves AEC, 489; administrative style, ited test ban, 333-34, 336—37; press sup497; promotes high-energy physics, 522; port for H-bomb test ban, 339-40; and dispushes controlled fusion, 525-26; urges armament, 361—64; Eisenhower searches Plowshare research, 529; monitors Geneva for, 375—76; linked to disarmament, 383; conference of experts, 540; sees Eisenhower inspections, 397-98; growing support

on test ban, 545-46 __ for, 450—51; 1957 London conference,

Strontium-90: Libby on dangers of, 265, 329; 458-59; U.S. reassessment, 459; impact worldwide levels, 322; Lapp uses Libby’s of Sputnik, 464; Bethe panel appointed, data, 331; Commission on fallout levels, 471-72; international pressures for, 472— 341; 1956 campaign issue, 367, 369; world- 73; Humphrey subcommittee hearings, wide distribution, 376; estimates of con- 473—76; Bethe panel report, 477; Soviet centration, 456; Kulp article, 473; JCAE suspension of tests, 477—78; 1958 Geneva

hearings, 556 conference of experts, 537—41; “Geneva

Sturtevant, Alfred H., 283 system,” 541—42; October 1958 confer-

Submarine reactors: status in 1952, 8; early ence, 551; atmospheric test ban proposed, development, 21, 186—88; reactor develop- 902—59; atmospheric test ban and inspecment, 187—88; intermediate reactor devel- tion quota, 555—57; new version of threshoped, 188; pressurized-water system, 19]; old, 558—59; fading hopes in 1960, 561

INDEX

Test moratorium, 222—25, 274~—75, 295-99, 387-91; response to Stassen’s disarmament

348, 389, 542—45 proposals, 397-98; ratifies [AEA statute,

Thermonuclear weapons: accelerated program, 434; on [AEA director general, 437—38; 1950, 11; early requirements, 163-64; dry nuclear power competitor, 439; assessed by weapons, 166—67; significance of Castle, Kissinger, 454; 1957 moratorium, 461; an-

180-81; evaluating Bravo shot, 272-74; nounces test suspension, 477-78; highmorality of, 336—38; 1956 election issue, energy physics and fusion research, 530;

338—40; Eisenhower fears, 563-64. status of nuclear research in 1959, 534;

Third round. See Power demonstration reactor urges liberal classification policy for Ge-

program neva conference, 539; at Geneva confer-

Thomas, Charles A., 2, 15, 24, 184 ence of experts, 539—42; proposes test Three Wise Men, 404—15, 430-31 suspension without inspections, 547; reacTrapnell, Edward R., 6—14, 121-22, 243 tion to moratorium, 547; 1958 test series,

Treaty of Rome, 440 248; opposes inspection without veto, 551;

Tributyl phosphate (TBP) process, 162 rejects inspections proposal, 554; response Tritium production, 162, 167, 179, 398 to threshold proposal, 559

Triton, SSRN, 423, 521 United Automobile Workers, 358 Troop maneuvers, 150 United Kingdom: Atoms-for-Peace negotia694. Truman, Harry S.: orders Eisenhower brief- tions, 218—20; thermonuclear weapons,

ing, 3; approves Eisenhower briefing, 15; 224, 286; Atoms for Peace, 226; on atomic lays submarine keel, 21; opposes private bank, 229, 230; nuclear power challenges, power, 26; approves H-bomb development, 240; Geneva reactors, 250; decision to 39; denounces McCarthyism, 68; author of build thermonuclear weapons, 276; Parliaatomic era, 359; on nuclear testing, 366 ment fallout statement, 285; UN fallout

Tsarapkin, Simyon, 540, 542, 551, 554, 556, study, 291—92; international agency, 309-—

559 10; safeguards conference, 312; Calder

Tuck, James L., 525 Hall reactor, 327; moves toward test ban,

Tumbler-Snapper test series, 145 333-34; test ban/moratorium, 348; 1956

Turkey, 236 Mideast war, 373; wary of disarmament Twining, Nathan F., 463, 483 talks, 383; Christmas Island test series,

Tyler, Carroll L., 149, 151-53, 157-59 391, 548; briefed by Stassen, 394; Brussels task force, 431; on Cole as IAEA director

Unden, Bo Osten, 292—93 general, 437; nuclear power competitor,

Underground testing, 461, 477, 485, 487-88, 439; Geneva conference, 1958, 446—48;

941-43, 549-50 demands weapon data, 537-38; reluctantly

Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation, 3, accepts moratorium, 547

114, 254. United Nations, 303, 384—85, 455

Union Electric Company, 193 United Nations Disarmament Commission, Union of South Africa, 159-60, 219, 229, 291—304.

230, 240, 432 United Nations Disarmament Subcommittee,

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR): 276, 336 weapon capabilities, 50, 54; detonates Joe United Nations General Assembly: hears

4, 57-58; Atoms-for-Peace negotiations, Eisenhower Atoms-for-Peace speech, 72; 219; critical of Atoms-for-Peace proposal, disarmament commission, 1952, 212; ninth 220-22; weapon test moratorium, 222; ac- session, 228; places Atoms for Peace on cepts Atoms-for-Peace proposal, 228; nu- agenda, 235; nuclear test suspension, 303; clear power challenges, 240; Geneva reac- disarmament, 380-81; considers nuclear tors, 250; reaction to Bravo shot, 274; disarmament, 462—64; debates test susLondon disarmament conference, 296—97; pension, 947-48 thaw, 299; on IAEA, 309, 310; safeguards U.S. Vanadium Corporation, 160 problem, 310; safeguards conference, 312— Untermyer, Samuel, 191 17; thermonuclear threat, 332; IAEA ne- Upshot-Knothole test series: initial planning,

gotiations, 360; 1956 test series, 362; 145-46; civil effects tests, 147—49; tests of Chinese membership in IAEA, 370; Hun- weapon designs, 149—50; military effects garian uprising, 1956, 373; 1957 disarma- tests, 150; safety criteria, 151—53; offsite

ment negotiations, 380; weapon tests, fallout, 153—54; additional test approved, 1957, 384; fears of nuclear war, 387-88; 156; radiation effects, 263; offsite fallout,

interested in disarmament and test ban, 265-66, 288-89

INDEX

Uranium, 432 series, 483; demonstration against, 483— Uranium ore procurement. See Raw materials 85; moratorium debated in GAC, 485— procurement 86; U.S. moratorium, 542—49; Hardtack I,

Uranium-235 production, l61—62, 354-55 248; pressure to resume tests, 957-58;

Utinik, 27] U.S. moratorium expires, 558

Weather Bureau, U.S., 153, 291, 369

Van Zandt, James E., 27, 140 Wedemeyer, Albert C., 277 Vanadium Corporation of America, 160 Weeks, Sinclair, 115

Vance, Harold S.: on disarmament, 333; sup- Weinberg, Alvin M., 190-91, 254, 312, 533 ports public power, 358—59; test mor- Weinberg, Joseph W., 46—47

atorium at London Conference, 389; Weiss, Edward S., 154.

EURATOM, 406; federal subsidy for nu- Wenzell, Adolphe H., 248—49 clear power, 407; American Assembly, Western Electric Company, 180 415; reactor development program, 418; West Germany, 355, 404 nuclear power policy, 425; proposal for re- Westinghouse Electric Corporation: contractor actor development, 425-26; reactor devel- status, 1952, 3; developing carrier reactor, opment policy, 428; EURATOM safe- 28; assigned PWR, 32; joins submarine reguards, 441; questions Hardtack plans, actor program, 187—88; studies PWR, 192;

473 designs Shippingport 197; Bettis Plant, Vanguard, 447 256; Shippingport,plant, 358, 419—22; nuclear Vitro Chemical Company, 160 navy, 422—23; reactor design evaluated,

Vitro Corporation of America, 315 493~—95; develops new submarine reactors, Volpe, Joseph A., Jr., 63-64, 80, 248-49 920—21; controlled-fusion research, 527 von Neumann, John, 180, 241, 318, 407 Wexler, Harry, 291

Von Treschkow, Walter, 249 Wheeler, John A., 37~—40, 261, 562

Voorhis, Jerry, 204 White, Harry Dexter, 68, 70 Vyshinsky, Andrei Y., 231-32 Whitman, Anne, 349

Whitman, Walter G., 233, 235

Wadsworth, James T., 436, 437, 447, 551, Whitney, John Hay, 392

597, 559 Wigner, Eugene P., 312

Walker, John T., 37-39, 41, 47 Wiley, Alexander, 56

Walter, Francis, 451 Williams, G. Mennen, 353 Warren, Shields, 369, 379, 455, 473 Williams, John H., 533

Washburn, Abbott, 386 Wilson, Charles E.: influence of industry in Washington Academy of Sciences, 376 new administration, 17; opposes rapid de-

Washington University, 368, 391 velopment of civilian power, 24; on nuclear

Waste processing, 162 power, 30; opposes disarmament study, 44; Water-cooled reactor, 413 opposes Candor, 52; on Soviet threat, 61; Waterman, Alan T., 523 attacks speech plan, 66; reacts to Borden

Waters, John A., 38-39, 50 letter, 69; opposes Atoms-for-Peace speech, Weapon effects. See Fallout 71; recommends new requirements, 168; op-

Weapon requirements, 9-11, 20, 167—68 poses power reactors abroad, 199; AtomsWeapon testing: 1956 elections, 351; dis- for-Peace negotiations, 218; doubts about cussed at Bermuda, 1957, 383-84; op- test moratorium, 275; opposes presidential posed by scientists, 390-91; AEC moder- statement on fallout, 281; opposes disarmaates opposition to ban, 391—92; JCAE ment plan, 297, 302-3, 389; on defense

hearings, 399; underground, 400 budget, 349; disarmament adviser, 362;

Weapons Effects Handbook, 376 H-bomb history, 370

Weapons tests: plans for 1953, 19; public re- Wilson, Robert E., 370 actions to Upshot-Knothole, 148—49; im- Wilson, Roscoe C., 92 pact of Castle, 178-82; fallout, 264-66; Wise Men. See Three Wise Men effects on weather, 290-—91; protests, 345; Wolverine project, 414 threatened by fallout fears, 449-51; as deterrent to nuclear war, 450-51; moratorium —_—-Yale University, 390

proposal announced, 460; Plumbbob test Yankee Atomic Electric Company, 205, 207,

series, 461; progress toward moratorium, 201, 358, 494—95 461-62; Hardtack, Phase J, plans, 482— Yates, Eugene A., 130 83; high-altitude tests, 482-83; Argus tests | York, Herbert F., 149, 180, 516, 517-18, 528

695

INDEX

Zaroubin, Georgi N., 219, 220 396; agrees to test ban with inspection, Zehring, Robert W., 416—17, 418-19, 421, 397; proposes temporary test morato-

424 rium, 397; denounces U.S. disarmament

Zero-gradient synchrotron, 522 position, 460

Zinn, Walter H.: reassures Nichols, 111; builds = Zuckert, Eugene M.: background, 13; briefs

breeder reactor, 190; directs Argonne Na- Eisenhower, 13—15; meets Nichols, 64; tional Laboratory, 255; high-energy phy- briefed on Oppenheimer, 75; on statement

sics, 208-60; safeguards conference, of charges, 78; on general manager’s re312—13; adviser to Anderson, 342; criti- view, 101; loses hearing document, 105; cizes AEC power program, 413— 14; heavy- votes against Oppenheimer, 106, 107-8; water reactors, 418; on JCAE reactor panel, on compulsory licensing, 115, 116; on prin-

495 cipal officer issue, 124—25; learns of Dixon-

Zorin, Valerian: London disarmament confer- Yates proposal, 129; opposes Dixon- Yates, ence, 385—86; receives “informal” disar- 131—32; concern about weapon test, 156— mament proposal, 394; replies to Stassen, 27; questions JCS requirements, 168; leaves

396; threatens to break off negotiations, Commission, 241

696

Compositor: G&S Typesetters, Inc. Text: Bodoni Book Display: Bodoni Book and Aachen Bold Printer: Maple-Vail Book Mfg. Group Binder: Maple-Vail Book Mfg. Group